State of Florida, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 91

ORDER re: time to respond to amended complaint (#4286) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2011)

1
2
3
4

Harrison J. Frahn IV (SBN 206822)
[e-mail]
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
2550 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

5
6
7
8

Attorneys for Defendants
Chimei Innolux Corporation,
Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., and
CMO Japan Co., Ltd.

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12
13
14

IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL)
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

MDL No. 3:07-md-1827-SI

15
16
17
18

This Document Relates to Individual
No. 3:10-cv-03517-SI

21
22

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING TIME TO
RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

STATE OF FLORIDA,

19
20

CASE No. 3:10-cv-03517-SI

Plaintiff,
vs.
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:10- CV-03517-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI

1

The undersigned counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, hereby respectfully request

2

an extension of the deadline for Defendants Chimei Innolux Corporation (f/k/a Chi Mei

3

Optoelectronics Corporation), Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., and CMO Japan Co., Ltd.

4

(collectively, the “Chi Mei Defendants”), and Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., and

5

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. (collectively, the “Hitachi Defendants”), to respond to the

6

amended complaint filed by Plaintiff State of Florida on April 13, 2011, in the above-captioned

7

litigation (the “Amended Complaint”).

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

WHEREAS the Chi Mei Defendants and Hitachi Defendants, jointly with other Defendants
in this action, filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on May 20, 2011;
WHEREAS the Court entered an order denying Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint on September 15, 2011;
WHEREAS on September 29, 2011, the Court entered an order on extending Defendants’
deadline to answer the Amended Complaint to October 28, 2011;
WHEREAS on October 26, 2011, the Court entered an order on extending the Chi Mei and
Hitachi Defendants’ deadline to answer the Amended Complaint to November 11, 2011;
WHEREAS on November 16, 2011, the Court entered an order on extending the Chi Mei
and Hitachi Defendants’ deadline to answer the Amended Complaint to December 9, 2011;
WHEREAS Plaintiff State of Florida and the Chi Mei Defendants have agreed to a
settlement in principle of the above-captioned litigation;
WHEREAS Plaintiff State of Florida and the Hitachi Defendants have agreed to a
settlement in principle of the above-captioned litigation, subject to board approval;

22

WHEREAS the parties would benefit from additional time to finalize the settlement;

23

WHEREAS extending the time for the Chi Mei Defendants and Hitachi Defendants to

24

answer the Amended Complaint would not alter the date of any other event or deadline already

25

fixed by the Court;

26
27

THEREFORE, Plaintiff State of Florida and the Chi Mei Defendants and Hitachi
Defendants, by their respective counsel, stipulate and agree as follows:

28
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:10- CV-03517-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI

1
2

The Chi Mei Defendants and Hitachi Defendants will have until January 5, 2012 to answer
the Amended Complaint.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Dated: December 6, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF FLORIDA
By:

/s/ Nicholas J. Weilhammer
Nicholas J. Weilhammer

R. Scott Palmer
Lizabeth A. Brady
Nicholas J. Weilhammer (pro hac vice)
Eli Friedman
Office of the Attorney General
State of Florida
PL-01, The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
[phone] / [phone]
[e-mail]

14
15

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP

16

By: /s/ Harrison J. Frahn IV
Harrison J. Frahn IV

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Harrison J. Frahn IV (SBN 206822)
[e-mail]
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
2550 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
Chimei Innolux Corporation,
Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., and
CMO Japan Co., Ltd.

25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:10- CV-03517-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI

1

MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

2

By:

3
4
5
6
7
8

/s/ Kent M. Roger
/s/ Kent M. Roger

Kent M. Roger (SBN 95987)
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorney for Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi
Displays, Ltd., and Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:10- CV-03517-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI

1

Pursuant to General Order 45, Part X-B, the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this

2

document has been obtained from all parties whose signatures are indicated by a “confirmed”

3

signature (/s/) within this e-filed document.

4
5
6

Dated: December 6, 2011

/s/ Harrison J. Frahn IV
Harrison J. Frahn IV (SBN 206822)

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:10- CV-03517-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

Having considered the foregoing stipulation, and for good cause appearing, IT IS SO

3

ORDERED.

4
5
6

Dated: _________________, 2011
12/12

By
HON. SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:10- CV-03517-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI