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

Filing 127

ORDER granting extention to respond (#4168) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 Harrison J. Frahn IV (SBN 206822) hfrahn@stblaw.com SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 2550 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 251-5000 Facsimile: (650) 251-5002 5 6 7 8 Attorneys for Defendants Chi Mei Optoelectronics 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 15 16 17 18 MDL NO. 3:07-md-1827-SI This Document Relates to Individual Case No. 3:11-cv-00711-SI THE STATE OF NEW YORK, 21 22 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, 19 20 CASE NO. 3:11-cv-00711-SI 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. 3:11- CV-00711-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 New York on March 15, 2011, in the above-captioned 7 litigation (the “Amended Complaint”). 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 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 5, 2011; WHEREAS the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on August 9, 2011 (the “August 9, 2011 Order”); WHEREAS on August 25, 2011, the Court entered an order extending Defendants’ deadline to answer the Amended Complaint to September 14, 2011; WHEREAS on September 14, 2011, the Court entered an order extending Defendants’ deadline to answer the Amended Complaint to October 25, 2011; WHEREAS on October 21, 2011, Plaintiff, the Chi Mei Defendants, and the Hitachi 17 Defendants filed a joint stipulation to extend the Chi Mei and Hitachi Defendants’ deadline to 18 answer the Amended Complaint to November 22, 2011; 19 20 21 WHEREAS on October 26, 2011, the Court entered an order modifying the pretrial and trial schedule in the above-captioned litigation; WHEREAS on November 15, 2011, the Court entered an order (i) granting Plaintiff’s 22 motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and (ii) granting in part and denying in part 23 reconsideration of the August 9, 2011 Order. 24 25 26 27 WHEREAS Plaintiff State of New York and the Chi Mei Defendants have agreed to a settlement in principle of the above-captioned litigation; WHEREAS Plaintiff State of New York and the Hitachi Defendants have agreed to a settlement in principle of the above-captioned litigation, subject to board approval; 28 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 3:11- CV-00711-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI 1 2 3 WHEREAS the parties would benefit from additional time to continue to negotiate the terms of that settlement; WHEREAS further extending the time for the Chi Mei Defendants and Hitachi Defendants 4 to answer the Amended Complaint would not alter the date of any other event or deadline already 5 fixed by the Court; 6 7 8 9 THEREFORE, Plaintiff State of New York 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 December 9, 2011 to answer the Amended Complaint. 10 11 Dated: November 22, 2011 Respectfully submitted, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: /s/ Richard L. Schwartz Richard L. Schwartz Richard L. Schwartz* Acting Bureau Chief, Antitrust Bureau Amy McFarlane* Assistant Attorney General 120 Broadway, 26th Floor New York, New York 10271 (212) 416-8282 (voice) (212) 416-6015 (fax) Richard.Schwartz@ag.ny.gov 22 Attorneys for Plaintiff State of New York 23 * Automatic Pro Hac Vice Admission Pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 1, Dated July 3, 2007 (Waiving Civil L.R. 11-3) 24 25 26 SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 27 By: /s/ Harrison J. Frahn IV Harrison J. Frahn IV 28 Harrison J. Frahn IV (SBN 206822) 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 3:11- CV-00711-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI 1 2 3 4 5 6 hfrahn@stblaw.com SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 2550 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 251-5000 Facsimile: (650) 251-5002 Attorneys for Defendants Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., and CMO Japan Co., Ltd. 7 8 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 9 By: /s/ Kent M. Roger Kent M. Roger (SBN 95987) 10 11 12 13 14 15 Kent M. Roger (SBN 95987) One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-1001 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 Attorney for Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., and Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. 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. 3:11- CV-00711-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: November 22, 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. 3:11- CV-00711-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI 1 2 3 4 5 6 [PROPOSED] ORDER Having considered the foregoing stipulation, and for good cause appearing, IT IS SO ORDERED. 11/22 Dated: _________________, 2011 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. 3:11- CV-00711-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI

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?