Siegel v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 74

ORDER exending time to respond (3920) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

CHRISTOPHER A. NEDEAU (CA SBN 81297)
CARL L. BLUMENSTEIN (CA SBN 124158)
PATRICK J. RICHARD (CA SBN 131046)
SALEZKA L. AGUIRRE (CA SBN 260956)
NOSSAMAN LLP
50 California Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.398.2438
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for defendants AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION
and AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA

10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CASE NO. 10-cv-5625 SI

ALFRED H. SIEGEL, AS TRUSTEE OF THE
CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. LIQUIDATING
TRUST,

Master File No. 07-md-1827 SI

Plaintiff,

MDL No. 1827 SI

v.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION; AU
OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA,
INC; CHI MEI CORPORATION; CHI MEI
OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION; CHI
MEI OPTOELECTRONICS USA, INC.; CMO
JAPAN CO. LTD.; NEXGEN MEDIATECH,
INC.; NEXGEN MEDIATECH USA, INC.;
CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES LTD.;
TATUNG COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.;
EPSON IMAGING DEVICES
CORPORATION; EPSON ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC.; HANNSTAR DISPLAY
CORPORATION; LG DISPLAY CO. LTD.; LG
DISPLAY AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; SHARP
CORPORATION; SHARP ELECTRONICS;
TOSHIBA CORPORATION;
TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONICS
COMPONENTS, INC.;
TOSHIBA MOBILE DISPLAY CO., LTD.;
CASE NO. 10-cv-5625 SI

1

SF_IMAN_263337_1 (2).DOC

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2

TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION
SYSTEMS, INC.; HITACHI, LTD.; HITACHI
DISPLAYS, LTD.; AND HITACHI
ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), INC.,

3
Defendants.
4
5
6
7

WHEREAS Plaintiff Alfred H. Siegel, as Trustee of the Circuit City Stores, Inc. Liquidating
Trust (“Circuit City Trust”), filed a Second Amended Complaint in the above-captioned case against
defendants AU Optronics Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation America, Chi Mei Corporation, Chi

8
Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., CMO Japan Co. Ltd., Chunghwa
9
10
11

Picture Tubes, Ltd., Nexgen Mediatech, Inc., Nexgen Mediatech USA, Inc., Epson Imaging Devices
Corporation, Epson Electronics America, Inc., HannStar Display Corporation, LG Display Co. Ltd., LG

12

Display America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung

13

Electronics America, Inc., Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, Tatung Company of

14

America, Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., Toshiba Mobile Display

15

Co., Ltd., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., and Hitachi

16

Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) on July 7, 2011;

17
18

WHEREAS Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Circuit City Trust’s Second Amended
Complaint on August 8, 2011;

19
20
21

WHEREAS the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on
September 15, 2011;

22

WHEREAS the Court approved a stipulation between the Circuit City Trust and certain

23

defendants, including AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America (“AUO”),

24

extending those defendants’ time to answer the Second Amended Complaint from September 29, 2011

25

until October 17, 2011.

26
27

WHEREAS AUO requires additional time to respond to Circuit City Trust’s Second Amended
Complaint;

28

2

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

WHEREAS Circuit City Trust and AUO have now agreed, pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2, that AUO

2

shall have up to and including October 31, 2011 to respond to the Second Amended Complaint, pending

3

approval of the Court;

4
5
6

WHEREAS this extension will not alter the date of any other event or any other deadline already
fixed by the Court;
THEREFORE, Circuit City Trust and AUO hereby agree that AUO shall have up to and

7

including October 31, 2011 to respond to the Second Amended Complaint.

8

IT IS SO STIPULATED

9

Dated: October 17, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

10
11
By: _s/Parker C. Folse, III
___
Parker C. Folse, III
Susman Godfrey, L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff ALFRED H. SIEGEL, AS
TRUSTEE OF THE CIRCUIT CITY STORES,
INC. LIQUIDATING TRUST

12
13
14
15
16
17

By: s/Christopher A. Nedeau ___________
Christopher A. Nedeau (Bar No. 81297)
50 California Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AND AU
OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Attestation: The filer of this document attests that the concurrence of the other signatory
thereto has been obtained.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION,
IT IS SO ORDERED:

25
26
27
28

10/18/11
_____________________________________
Date Entered

_____________________________________
Honorable Susan Illston

3

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT