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

Filing 63

ORDER TERMINATING/WITHDRAWING MOTION TO REMAND AS MOOT (C-11-711) re 62 Stipulation. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2011) Modified on 3/23/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF).

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

Doc. 63

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Michael R. Lazerwitz (PRO HAC VICE) Jeremy J. Calsyn (State Bar No. 205062) Lee F. Berger (State Bar No. 222756) CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006 [phone] (Phone) [phone] (Facsimile) [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Counsel for Defendants LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc. [Additional counsel listed on signature page]

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 This Document Relates To: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 Here, defendants are AU Optronics Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation America, Chi Mei

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION)

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

CASE NO. 3: 07-md-1827 SI MDL NO. 1827

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER The Honorable Susan J. Illston

State of New York v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., 3:11-cv-711 SI
.

WHEREAS on September 21, 2010, defendants1 submitted to the Southern District of New York its Notice of Motion to Stay Proceedings, Docket Number 14 ("Stay Motion"), asking that court

Optoelectronics USA, Inc., Chimei Innolux Corporation (f/k/a Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation), CMO Japan Ltd., Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd., LG Display America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., and Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd., f/k/a Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co. 1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER, Case No. M: 07-1827 SI
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 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

to stay the State of New York's litigation pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's ("JPML") decision on whether to transfer this case as a tag-along action to the ongoing consolidated proceedings before this Court; WHEREAS, before the Southern District of New York ruled on the motion, the JPML decided to transfer this case to this Court for inclusion in the coordinated pretrial proceedings already in progress. See Transfer Order (Dkt. No. 2405); WHEREAS, the parties agree that because this case has already been transferred to the MDL litigation, the Stay Motion's request to stay the case pending transfer to the MDL is moot; WHEREAS, on September 22, 2010, the State of New York filed its motion to remand this action to New York state court ("Remand Motion"), defendants timely opposed the Remand Motion, and the Remand Motion is now fully briefed; WHEREAS, on March 15, 2011, the State of New York filed an Amended Complaint in the above-captioned case (Dkt. No. 2556), and the Amended Complaint asserts claims under federal law; WHEREAS, the State of New York no longer wishes to remand this action to New York state court and defendants agree that this action should not be remanded, and therefore the parties agree that the Remand Motion is moot; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that an orderly schedule for the response to the Amended Complaint would be most efficient for the parties and for the Court; THEREFORE, the State of New York and defendants hereby agree:

2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER, Case No. M: 07-1827 SI

1 2 3 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

1. 2. 3.

The Stay Motion should be withdrawn as moot. The Remand Motion should be withdrawn as moot. The briefing for defendants' responses to the Amended Complaint should be as follows: (a) Defendants' responses to the Amended Complaint shall be due on May 5, 2011. Plaintiff's opposition shall be due on June 21, 2011. Defendants' replies shall be due on July 13, 2011.

(b) (c) 4.

Except as set forth above, all Federal and Local Rules shall remain in effect with respect to the pleadings and the briefing on the motions. Entering into this stipulation does not constitute a waiver of any defense, including under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. The parties respectfully request the Court to enter this stipulation as an order.

5.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: March 21, 2011

By:

s/ Michael R. Lazerwitz Michael R. Lazerwitz (PRO HAC VICE) Jeremy J. Calsyn (State Bar No. 205062) Lee F. Berger (State Bar No. 222756) CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006 [phone] (Phone) [phone] (Facsimile) [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc.

3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER, Case No. M: 07-1827 SI

1 2 3 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 4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER, Case No. M: 07-1827 SI

By: s/ Christopher A. Nedeau Christopher A. Nedeau Carl L. Blumenstein Allison Dibley NOSSAMAN LLP 50 California Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 [phone] (telephone) Attorneys for Defendants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America, Inc.

By: s/ Steven F. Cherry Steven F. Cherry Adam Raviv WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006-3642 [phone] (Phone) [phone] (Facsimile) [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Chi Mei Corporation, Chimei Innolux Corporation f/k/a Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., CMO Japan Co., Ltd., Nexgen Mediatech USA, Inc., and Nexgen Mediatech, Inc.

1 2 3 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 5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER, Case No. M: 07-1827 SI

By: s/ Kent M. Roger Kent M. Roger (State Bar No. 95987) Michelle Kim-Szrom (State Bar No. 252901) MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 [phone] (Phone) [phone] (Facsimile) [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd. and Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.

By: s/ Robert Wick Robert Wick (pro hac vice) Neil Roman (pro hac vice) Derek Ludwin (pro hac vice) COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004 [phone] (telephone) Attorneys for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

By: s/ John M. Grenfell John M. Grenfell Jacob R. Sorensen Fusae Nara Andrew D. Lanphere PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 50 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Attorneys for Defendants Sharp Corporation Sharp Electronics Corp.

1 2 3 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 6
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER, Case No. M: 07-1827 SI

By: s/ Christopher M. Curran Christopher M. Curran (pro hac vice) Kristen J. McAhren (pro hac vice) WHITE & CASE LLP 701 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-3807 [phone] (telephone) Attorneys for Defendants Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd., Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.

By: s/ Richard L. Schwartz Richard L. Schwartz John A. Ioannou Jeremy R. Kasha Assistant Attorneys General 120 Broadway, 25th Floor New York, New York 10271 Tel. [phone] [e-mail]

Attestation: The filer of this document attests that the concurrence of the other signatories thereto has been obtained.

SO ORDERED

Honorable Susan J. Illston 3/221/11 __________________________________________ Date Entered