Los Gatos Mercantile, Inc et al v. E.I DuPont De Nemours and Company et al

Filing 41

CORRECTED ORDER Initial Case Management Conference set for 1/31/2014 02:30 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 6/13/13., Motions terminated: 13 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 1 Complaint,, Extendin g Time for Defendants to Respond (Civil Local Rule 6-1(a)) and Stipulated Request for Order Continuing Initial Case Management and Related Deadlines (Civil Local Rule 6-1(b) & 6-2) filed by Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2013)

Download PDF
1 ROBERT D. HALLMAN (No. 239949) robert.hallman@aporter.com 2 ARNOLD & PORTER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor 3 San Francisco, CA 94111-4024 Telephone: 415.471.3100 4 Facsimile: 415.471.3400 5 Attorneys for Defendant MILLENNIUM INORGANIC CHEMICALS, 6 INC. 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 16 LOS GATOS MERCANTILE, INC., d/b/a LOS GATOS ACE HARDWARE, FRED SWAIM, INC. d/b/a QUALITY AUTO PARTS, ACE HARDWARE OF SOUTH WALTON, INC., LEXINGTON HOME CENTER, LLC, R.F. COLE, INC., d/b/a BREWERS PAINT CENTER, CUSIMANO CARSTAR COLLISION, INC., and THE CARPETSHOPPE, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Case No. 13-cv-01180 (SI) STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT (CIVIL LOCAL RULE 6-1(a)) AND STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT AND RELATED DEADLINES (CIVIL LOCAL RULE 6-1(b) & 6-2); [PROPOSED ORDER] 17 Plaintiffs, Action filed: March 15, 2013 18 v. 19 20 21 E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL LLC, KRONOS WORLDWIDE, INC., and MILLENNIUM INORGANIC CHEMICALS, INC., 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION RE SCHEDULING ISSUES 13-cv-01180-SI 1 2 RECITALS 1. Plaintiffs Los Gatos Mercantile, Inc. et al. filed on March 15, 2013 the Complaint for 3 Damages, Equitable and Injunctive Relief under the antitrust, consumer protection and unjust 4 enrichment laws of certain states on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers of titanium 5 dioxide (“Indirect Purchaser Complaint”). 6 2. Defendants E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Huntsman International LLC and 7 Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc. were served with the Complaint on March 22, 2013. 8 Defendant Kronos Worldwide, Inc. was served with the Complaint on April 12, 2013. 9 3. There is pending before Judge Richard D. Bennett of the District Court for the District 10 of Maryland, a case against the same Defendants alleging a violation of the Sherman Act §1 on 11 behalf of a certified class of direct purchasers of titanium dioxide. In re Titanium Dioxide Antitrust 12 Litigation, Master Docket No. 10-CV-00318 (RDB) (“Direct Purchaser Case”). The Direct 13 Purchaser Case was filed on February 9, 2010 and is set for trial on September 9, 2013. 14 4. In light of the fact that the Indirect Purchaser Complaint and the Direct Purchaser Case 15 are related in certain ways, and that the Direct Purchaser Case will proceed to trial in less than six 16 months, the Parties wish to avoid unnecessarily burdening themselves or the Court with the 17 responses to the Indirect Purchaser Complaint until the Direct Purchaser case has been resolved at 18 trial. 19 5. So that this time may be productively used, Defendants have agreed to support 20 modification of the Protective Order in In re Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litigation or support such 21 other means as necessary in order for the Plaintiffs’ Counsel in the Indirect Purchaser Complaint to 22 receive unredacted access to all sealed filings made in the Direct Purchaser Case. 23 6. Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(a), the parties have agreed that Defendants may have an 24 extension to November 26, 2013 to respond to the Indirect Purchaser Complaint. 25 7. Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-2, the parties also request that the Court continue 26 the initial case management conference and all related deadlines to a suitable date following the 27 stipulated November 26, 2013 deadline for the response to the complaint. The parties believe that 28 the Rule 26 discussions, the initial disclosures, and the case management conference will be more STIPULATION RE SCHEDULING ISSUES -1- 13-cv-01180-SI I 1 fruitful once both parties know whether Plaintiffs will file an amended complaint prior to 2 Defendants’ responses and whether Defendants will respond to the Indirect Purchaser Complaint or 3 an amended complaint. 4 8. There have been no prior time modifications in this case, and the only currently 5 scheduled event that the proposed time modification will impact is the initial case management 6 conference which is presently set for June 21, 2013. 7 STIPULATION 8 WHEREAS, the parties stipulate and agree as follows: 9 a. On or before October 15, 2013, Plaintiffs shall notify Counsel for Defendants as to 10 whether Plaintiffs intend to file an amended complaint. 11 b. Provided that they give notice to Defendants as set forth above, Plaintiffs may file an 12 amended or consolidated and amended complaint on or before November 26, 2013. This provision 13 is without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ right to amend their complaint, after the filing of Defendants’ 14 response, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). 15 c. Defendants will have 45 days from the date an amended complaint is filed, to respond, 16 provided that Defendants’ response will not be due anytime before November 26, 2013. In the event 17 that Plaintiffs elect not to file an amended complaint, Defendants will respond to the Indirect 18 Purchaser Complaint on or before November 26, 2013. 19 d. The parties request that the Court extend the date of the initial case management 20 conference, currently set for June 21, 2013, and all related deadlines, to a suitable date following the 21 stipulated November 26, 2013 deadline for the response to the Indirect Purchaser Complaint. 22 e. If a related action is filed in any court, on behalf of a putative class of indirect 23 purchasers of Titanium Dioxide, Defendants will attempt to enter into a similar stipulation with the 24 parties to said related action. If Defendants are unable to do so, Plaintiffs Los Gatos Mercantile, Inc. 25 et al. and Defendants will negotiate new deadlines for Defendants’ response to the Indirect 26 Purchaser Complaint and the deadlines set forth in paragraphs (a)-(c) of this Stipulation shall no 27 longer be in force. 28 f. Defendants will support modification of the Protective Order in In re Titanium Dioxide STIPULATION RE SCHEDULING ISSUES -2- 13-cv-01180-SI 1 Antitrust Litigation or support such other means as necessary in order for the Plaintiffs’ Counsel in 2 the Indirect Purchaser Complaint to receive unredacted access to all sealed filings made in the Direct 3 Purchaser Case. 4 5 PROPOSED ORDER Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, (a) the last day for the parties to meet and confer 6 regarding initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR process, and discovery plan; file ADR 7 Certification signed by Parties and Counsel; and file either Stipulation to ADR Process or Notice of 8 Need for ADR Phone Conference is continued to January 10, 2014; (b) the last day to file Rule 26(f) 9 Report, complete initial disclosures or state objections in Rule 26(f) Report, and file Case 10 Management Statement is continued to January 24, 2014; and (c) the Initial Case Management 1/31/14 11 Conference is reset for _______________ at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor. 12 13 DATED: 6/13/13 14 Hon. Susan Illston United States District Judge 15 16 17 Approved as to form and stipulations: 18 PRATT & ASSOCIATES 19 20 21 By: /s/ Ben F. Pierce Gore BEN F. PIERCE GORE Attorneys for Plaintiffs 22 ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 23 24 25 26 By: /s/ Robert D. Hallman ROBERT D. HALLMAN Attorneys for Defendant MILLENNIUM INORGANIC CHEMICALS, INC. 27 28 STIPULATION RE SCHEDULING ISSUES -3- 13-cv-01180-SI 1 2 FILER’S ATTESTATION I, Robert D. Hallman, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file this 3 Stipulation Extending Time for Defendants to Respond to Complaint (Local Rule 6-1(a)) and 4 Stipulated Request For Order Continuing Initial Case Management And Related Deadlines 5 (Civil Local Rule 6-1(B) & 6-2); [Proposed Order]. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I 6 hereby attest that Ben F. Pierce Gore has concurred in this filing. 7 DATED: April 12, 2013 /s/ Robert D. Hallman ROBERT D. HALLMAN 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION RE SCHEDULING ISSUES -4- 13-cv-01180-SI 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I am a citizen of the United States employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 3 Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111. On April 12, 2013, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as: 4 STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO 5 COMPLAINT (CIVIL LOCAL RULE 6-1(a)) AND STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT AND RELATED DEADLINES (CIVIL 6 LOCAL RULE 6-1(b) & 6-2); [PROPOSED ORDER] 7 on the interested parties in this action addressed as shown below. 8 Jonathan W. Cuneo Joel Davidow 9 Katherine Van Dyck Victoria Romanenko 10 Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP 507 C Street, NE 11 Washington, DC 20002 Dan Barrett Barrett Law Group, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39695 12 Dewitt Lovelace Lovelace & Associates, P.A. 13 12870 US Hwy 98 West, Ste. 200 Miramar Beach, FL 32550 14 Shawn M. Raiter Larson & King, LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Place 30 East Seventh Street St. Paul, MN 55101 15 Phillip Duncan Richard Quintus 16 Duncan Firm, P.A. 900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725 17 Little Rock, AK 72211 18  BY MAIL I caused the sealed envelope(s) or package(s) to be deposited with postage fully prepaid thereon in the United States Mail in San Francisco, California. I am "readily familiar" with this firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service.  BY PERSONAL SERVICE I caused FreeWheelin’ Attorney Service to deliver such envelope by hand to the office of the addressee(s) above.  BY FEDERAL EXPRESS I caused the sealed envelope(s) or package(s) to be delivered by Federal Express Priority Overnight (delivery by next business morning) to the offices of the addressee(s) by placing the envelope(s) or package(s) for collection and overnight delivery. I am "readily familiar" with this firm's practice of collection for overnight delivery. On the same day that envelopes or packages are placed for collection, they are either picked up by Federal Express or deposited at a facility regularly maintained by Federal Express in the ordinary course of business with the cost thereof billed to the firm’s account. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 13-cv-01180-SI I

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?