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

Filing 98

ORDER re: time to respond (#4467) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2012)

4467
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

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

8
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

Case No. 3:10-cv-03517-SI
MDL No. 3:07-md-1827-SI

15
16

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

17
18

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,

19
20
21
22

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

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

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 on December 15, 2011, the Court entered an order on extending the Chi Mei
and Hitachi Defendants’ deadline to answer the Amended Complaint to January 5, 2012;

20

WHEREAS Plaintiff State of Florida, on the one hand, and the Chi Mei and Hitachi

21

Defendants, on the other, have agreed to a settlement in principle of the above-captioned litigation

22

and have now memorialized their respective settlements;

23

WHEREAS on December 23, 2011, Plaintiff State of Florida joined in a motion seeking

24

preliminary approval of its settlements with the Chi Mei Defendants and the Hitachi Defendants;

25

WHEREAS on December 27, 2011, the Court entered an order advancing the date on the

26

hearing of the preliminary approval motion to January 20, 2012;

27
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
3

WHEREAS the parties would benefit from an extension of time to answer as the Court
considers the preliminary approval motion;
WHEREAS extending the time for the Chi Mei Defendants and Hitachi Defendants to

4

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

5

fixed by the Court;

6
7
8

THEREFORE, Plaintiff State of Florida and the Chi Mei Defendants and Hitachi
Defendants, by their respective counsel, stipulate and agree as follows:
The Chi Mei Defendants and Hitachi Defendants will have until February 7, 2012 to answer

9

the Amended Complaint.

10

Dated: January 3, 2012

11
12
13

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

/s/ Nicholas J. Weilhammer
Nicholas J. Weilhammer

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

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]

21
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
22
23
24
25
26
27

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

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
2
3
4

Attorneys for Defendants
Chimei Innolux Corporation,
Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., and
CMO Japan Co., Ltd.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

5
By:
6
7
8
9

/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]

10
11

Attorney for Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi
Displays, Ltd., and Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.

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: January 3, 2012

/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: _________________, 2012

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