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

Filing 153

ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting (5054) Stipulation in case 3:07-md-01827-SI; granting (152) Stipulation in case 3:11-cv-00711-SI (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

HOLLY A. HOUSE (SB# 136045)
KEVIN C. MCCANN (SB# 120874)
SEAN D. UNGER (SB# 231694)
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
55 Second Street
Twenty-Fourth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-3441
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
LEE F. BERGER (SB# 222756)
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
875 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

9
10

Attorneys for Defendants
LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc.

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

15
16
17

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

CASE NO. 3:11-cv-00711 SI
Case No. M 07-md-01827 SI

18

MDL No. 1827

19

STIPULATION REGARDING EFFECT OF
COURT’S PRIOR RULINGS ON NEW
YORK’S SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
NEW YORK’S SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

20
21

This Document Relates to Individual Case
No. 11-cv-00711 SI:
STATE OF NEW YORK,

22
23
24
25

Plaintiff,
v.

Judge: Honorable Susan Y. Illston
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-00711 SI
Case No. M 07-md-1827 SI

STIPULATION OF DISMISSED CLAIMS
AND TIME TO ANSWER

1
2

Plaintiff State of New York and Defendants party to the above-captioned action
(collectively, “Parties”) hereby stipulate as follows:
STIPULATION

3
4

WHEREAS the Court previously entered its Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part

5

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on August 9, 2011 (Master Docket No. 3242) (“MTD Order”),

6

which Motion was directed to New York’s First Amended Complaint;

7

WHEREAS the Court has also previously entered its Order Granting New York’s Motion

8

for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration and Granting in Part Reconsideration on

9

November 15, 2011 (Master Docket No. 4144) (“Reconsideration Order”);

10
11

WHEREAS New York reserves its rights, including its right of appeal, with respect to
those claims or branches of claims dismissed by the MTD Order;

12
13

WHEREAS New York subsequently filed its Second Amended Complaint (Master
Docket No. 4763) (“the Second Amended Complaint”) on February 3, 2012;

14

WHEREAS, the sole amendment which New York made to its complaint concerned its

15

basis for asserting claims on behalf of certain non-State public entities pursuant to Section 342-b

16

of the New York General Business Law, and in all other respects New York’s complaint is

17

unaltered;

18

WHEREAS, the parties wish to clarify that the Court’s prior rulings in its MTD Order

19

apply to New York’s Second Amended Complaint, and to extend defendants’ time to file answers

20

to it;

21

WHEREAS the Parties have conferred regarding the Second Amended Complaint;

22

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, through their undersigned respective counsel, stipulate

23
24
25
26
27

and request that the Court order as follows:
1. That the defendants have until March 16, 2012 to file their answers to the Second
Amended Complaint;
2. That the Court’s prior orders, Master Docket No. 3242 and Master Docket No. 4144,
apply to the Second Amended Complaint, and specifically,

28
Case No. 11-cv-00711 SI
Case No. M 07-md-1827 SI

STIPULATION OF DISMISSED CLAIMS
AND TIME TO ANSWER

1
2
3
4
5

(a) That, by its MTD Order, the Court dismissed New York’s Donnelly Act
parens patriae damages claims, and adhered to that holding in the Reconsideration Order;
(b) That New York, in its opposition to Defendants’ May 5, 2011 Motion to
Dismiss, withdrew its pre-December 23, 1998 Donnelly Act indirect purchaser claims;
(c) That, by its MTD Order, the Court dismissed those New York assigned claims

6

concerning master purchase agreements without a New York choice-of-law provision.

7

DATED: March 7, 2012

8

HOLLY A. HOUSE
KEVIN C. McCANN
LEE F. BERGER
PAUL HASTINGS LLP

9
By:

/s/ Lee F. Berger
Lee F. Berger
Attorneys for Defendants
LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc.

10
11
12

With the approval of counsel for AU Optronics
Corporation; AU Optronics Corporation America; Toshiba
Corporation; Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd.; Toshiba
America Electronic Components, Inc.; Toshiba America
Information Systems, Inc.

13
14
15
16

DATED: March 7, 2012

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of New York

17
By:

18
19

/s/ Amy McFarlane
Amy McFarlane

24

Richard L. Schwartz*
Amy McFarlane*
Assistant Attorneys General
Antitrust Bureau
120 Broadway, 26th Floor
New York, New York 10271
[phone] (voice)
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]

25

Counsel for Plaintiff State of New York

20
21
22
23

*Automatic Pro Hac Vice Admission Pursuant to Pretrial
Order No. 1, Dated July 3, 2007 (Waiving Civil
L.R. 11-3)

26
27
28

Attestation: The filer of this document attests that the concurrence of the other signatories thereto
has been obtained.
Case No. 11-cv-00711 SI
Case No. M 07-md-1827 SI

-2-

STIPULATION OF DISMISSED CLAIMS
AND TIME TO ANSWER

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
3/8
DATED: _____________, 2012
Hon. Susan Illston
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-00711 SI
Case No. M 07-md-1827 SI

-3-

STIPULATION OF DISMISSED CLAIMS
AND TIME TO ANSWER