The State of New York v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 101

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT (3542) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP JOHN M. GRENFELL (CA Bar No. 88500) john.grenfell@pillsburylaw.com JACOB R. SORENSEN (CA Bar No. 209134) jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com FUSAE NARA (pro hac vice) fusae.nara@pillsburylaw.com ANDREW D. LANPHERE (CA Bar No. 191479) andrew.lanphere@pillsburylaw.com 50 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 983-1000 Facsimile: (415) 983-1200 Attorneys for Defendants SHARP CORPORATION and SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 14 15 IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION Master File No. 3:07-md-1827 SI MDL No. 1827 This Document Relates To: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING SHARP’S TIME TO ANSWER AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 17 18 19 20 Case No. 3:11-cv-711 SI STATE OF NEW YORK, by and through, ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General, 21 22 23 Plaintiff, v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 500899690v1 STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER AMENDED COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Master File No. 3:07-md-1827 SI, MDL No. 1827 1 WHEREAS plaintiff State of New York filed an Amended Complaint in the above- 2 captioned case against Defendants AU Optronics Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation 3 America, Inc., Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., 4 CMO Japan Co., Ltd., Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices 5 (USA), Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd., LG Display America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., 6 Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Sharp 7 Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba Matsushita 8 Display Technology Co., Ltd., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., and Toshiba 9 America Electronic Components, Inc. on March 15, 2011, Dkt. no. 2556; 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 WHEREAS the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on August 9, 2011; WHEREAS Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics Corporation (together, “Sharp”) desire a reasonable amount of time to answer the Amended Complaint; WHEREAS the Court previously entered an Order extending the time to answer the Amended Complaint on August 25, 2011, as stipulated by Plaintiff and Sharp; and WHEREAS the requested time modification will not affect any other deadline in this case. THEREFORE, the State of New York and Sharp hereby agree that Sharp’s deadline to answer to the Amended Complaint shall be October 25, 2011. Dated: September 13, 2011 21 ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York 22 By: /s/ Richard L. Schwartz Richard L. Schwartz Acting Bureau Chief, Antitrust Bureau Amy McFarlane Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Plaintiff 120 Broadway, 26th Floor New York, New York 10271 (212) 416-8282 (Phone) (212) 416-6015 (Facsimile) Richard.Schwartz@ag.ny.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff State of New York 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1500899690v1 STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER AMENDED COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Master File No. 3:07-md-1827 SI, MDL No. 1827 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP JOHN M. GRENFELL JACOB R. SORENSEN FUSAE NARA ANDREW D. LANPHERE 50 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105 1 2 3 4 5 6 By: /s/ John M. Grenfell John M. Grenfell 7 Attorneys for Defendants SHARP CORPORATION and SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION 8 9 10 11 ATTESTATION: Pursuant to General Order 45, Part X-B, the filer attests that the concurrence of the other signatory hereto has been obtained. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ______________ Honorable Susan Illston 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2500899690v1 STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER AMENDED COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Master File No. 3:07-md-1827 SI, MDL No. 1827

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?