Maravilla et al v. Delphi Automotive LLP et al

Filing 7

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 2/2/12. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2012)

1

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
2 Daniel M. Wall (State Bar No. 102580)
505 Montgomery Street, Ste. 2000
3 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
5
Attorney for Defendant
6 Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.
7 (Additional Attorneys Listed On Signature Page)
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,

10
11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00258-JCS
12 ESTABAN MARAVILLA, TONY
MARAVILLA & GRETHA
Hon. Joseph C. Spero
13 WILKERSON, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, _________________
14
Plaintiffs,
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF
15
v.
TIME TO RESPOND TO CLASS
16
ACTION COMPLAINT
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE LLP,
FURUKAWA ELECTRIC
17
COMPANY LTD.; LEAR CORP.;
18 LEONI AG; SUMITOMO ELECTRIC
INDUSTRIES, LTD.; S-Y SYSTEMS
19 TECHNOLOGIES GMBH; YAZAKI
CORP.; YAZAKI NORTH AMERICA
20 INC.,
Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00258-JCS

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1, plaintiffs Estaban Maravilla, Tony

2 Maravilla and Gretha Wilkerson (“Plaintiffs”) and defendant Sumitomo Electric
3 Industries, Ltd. (“Sumitomo”) hereby jointly file the instant Stipulation for
4 Extension of Time to Respond to Class Action Complaint.
5

Currently pending before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

6 Litigation (“JPML”) is a motion that was filed on October 11, 2011, pursuant to 28
7 U.S.C. § 1407, to consolidate for pretrial proceedings a number of related civil
8 actions that allege that defendants engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy regarding
9 automotive electrical wire harness systems (the “Related Actions”). So as to
10 preserve both party and judicial resources pending the JPML’s decision in this
11 matter, Plaintiffs and Sumitomo, by and through their undersigned counsel,
12 stipulate to the following:
13

(1) If the JPML transfers all related civil actions to a single district for

14 coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407,
15 Sumitomo shall, as permitted by Federal Rule 12, answer, move or otherwise
16 respond to the complaint in the above-captioned action (the “Complaint”) within
17 45 days after: (a) the plaintiffs in the consolidated actions serve a consolidated
18 amended complaint, or (b) the plaintiffs in the consolidated actions serve notice
19 that they will not file a consolidated amended complaint.
20

(2) If the JPML denies the motion to transfer all related civil actions to a

21 single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, Sumitomo
22 shall, as permitted by Federal Rule 12, answer, move or otherwise respond to the
23 Complaint within 45 days after service of the JPML ruling.
24

(3) If all plaintiffs in the Related Actions agree to consolidate all related civil

25 actions in a single district and withdraw the pending motions before the JPML, and
26 Sumitomo has not filed and does not file its own motion to transfer the Related
27 Actions to a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
28 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Sumitomo shall, as permitted by Rule 12, answer,
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
1
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00258-JCS

1 move or otherwise respond to the Complaint within 45 days after: (a) the plaintiffs
2 in the consolidated actions file a consolidated amended complaint, or (b) the
3 plaintiffs in the consolidated actions file notice that they will not file a consolidated
4 amended complaint.
5

(4) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2) or (3), above, if Sumitomo files an

6 answer, moves or otherwise responds pursuant to Federal Rule 12 in any of the
7 Related Actions before the date required by this stipulation, Sumitomo will
8 concurrently file its answer, move or otherwise respond as permitted by Rule 12 in
9 this matter.
10

(5) Plaintiffs and Sumitomo stipulate and agree that the entry into this

11 stipulation by Sumitomo shall not constitute a waiver of (a) any jurisdictional
12 defenses that may be available under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil
13 Procedure, (b) any affirmative defenses under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
14 Procedure or (c) any other statutory or common law defenses that may be available
15 to Sumitomo in this and the other Related Actions. Sumitomo expressly reserves
16 its rights to raise any such defenses (or any other defense) in response to either the
17 current Complaint or any amended complaint that may be filed relating to this
18 action.
19 //
20 //
21 //
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27
28
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00258-JCS

1 IT IS SO STIPULATED.
2

Dated: February 1, 2012

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

THE TERRELL LAW GROUP
By: /s/ Reginald Terrell
Reginald Terrell
Post Office Box 13315, PMB #148
Oakland, CA 94661
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

11
12

Attorney for Plaintiffs

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00258-JCS

1 Dated: February 1, 2012
2

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

3
4

By: /s/ Daniel M. Wall
Daniel M. Wall

5
6

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Daniel M. Wall (State Bar No. 102580)
505 Montgomery Street, Ste. 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

7
8
9
10

Attorney for Defendant
Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.

11
12
13

R NIA

ED

pero

H

ER

FO

Judge Jo

LI

RT

18

ORDER
S
seph C.

NO

17

Dated: February 2, 2012

O
IT IS S

A

16

UNIT
ED

15

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

14

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00258-JCS