T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc. v AU Optronics Corporation, et al

Filing 148

RESPONSE (re 139 MOTION to Dismiss LG Counterclaims ) LG Display America, Inc.'s and LG Display Co., Ltd.'s Opposition to Direct Action Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaims and Strike Their Defenses Concerning Duplicative Recovery filed byLG Display America Inc, LG Display Co Ltd. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(House, Holly) (Filed on 8/16/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

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]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

7
8
9
10

LEE F. BERGER (SB# 222756)
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
875 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

11
12

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

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16

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

17

Case Nos. 3:11-cv-03763 SI; 3:11-cv-02495
SI; 3:11-cv-02225 SI; 3:11-cv-04119 SI;
3:11-cv-02591 SI

18

This Document Relates To:

19

Case No. M 07-md-01827 SI
MDL No. 1827

20

Interbond Corporation of America v. AU
Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No.
3:11-cv-03763 SI

21

Jaco Electronics, Inc. v. AU Optronics
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-02495 SI

22

Office Depot, Inc. v. AU Optronics
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-02225 SI

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING THE
DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS’
COUNTERCLAIMS AND STRIKE
THEIR DEFENSES CONCERNING
DUPLICATIVE RECOVERY

23

25

P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation,
et al. v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case
No. 3:11-cv-04119 SI

26

T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc. v. AU Optronics
Corporation, et al., Case No 3:11-cv-02591 SI

24

Date:
September 7, 2012
Time:
9:00 a.m.
Courtroom: 10
Judge:
Honorable Susan Y. Illston

27
28
Case Nos. 3:11-cv-03763 SI; 3:11-cv-02495 SI;
3:11-cv-02225 SI; 3:11-cv-04119 SI; 3:11-cv02591 SI; M-07-md-01827 SI

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING THE DAP’S
MOTION TO DISMISS DEFS’ COUNTERCLAIMS
AND STRIKE THEIR DEFENSES

1

The motion by direct action plaintiffs to dismiss defendants’ counterclaims and strike their

2

defenses concerning duplicative recovery having regularly come on for hearing in the above

3

captioned cases on September 7, 2012, before the Honorable Susan Illston, United States District

4

Judge, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, located in

5

Courtroom 10 of the United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 19th Floor,

6

San Francisco, California, the matter having been fully briefed and argued, and having been

7

submitted, and good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that:

8
9

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaims concerning duplicative
recovery is denied.

10
11

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ defenses concerning duplicative recovery is
denied.

12
13
14

Dated: __________________, 2012
Hon. Susan Illston
United States District Judge

15
16
17

LEGAL_US_W # 72390201.1

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case Nos. 3:11-cv-03763 SI; 3:11-cv-02495 SI;
3:11-cv-02225 SI; 3:11-cv-04119 SI; 3:11-cv02591 SI; M-07-md-01827 SI

-1-

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING THE DAP’S
MOTION TO DISMISS DEFS’ COUNTERCLAIMS
AND STRIKE THEIR DEFENSES