Ingram Micro Inc et al v. LG Electronics Inc et al

Filing 49

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/4/14. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

JOEL B. KLEINMAN (Pro Hac Vice)
LISA M. KAAS (Pro Hac Vice)
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street NW
Washington, DC 20006-5403
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
JAMES TURKEN (Bar No. 89618)
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

8
9
10

Attorneys for Defendants BenQ Corporation
and BenQ America Corp.
[Additional Counsel on Signature Page]

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Base Case No. 3:10-md-02143-RS
IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE
PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION MDL No. 2143

This document relates to:
Ingram Micro Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics,
Inc., et al.

Case No. 3:13-cv-05372-RS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO
RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

21

WHEREAS, pursuant to this Court’s Order (Dkt. No. 1249), Plaintiffs Ingram Micro Inc.

22

and Synnex Corporation (together, “Plaintiffs”) filed their Amended Complaint for Damages and

23

Injunctive Relief (the “Amended Complaint”) on June 16, 2014; and

24

WHEREAS, according to that Order, the deadline for Defendants, including defendants

25

BenQ Corporation and BenQ America Corp. (together, the “BenQ Defendants”), to answer or

26

otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is July 31, 2014; and

27
28

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and the BenQ Defendants are discussing Plaintiffs’ claims and the
defenses of the BenQ Defendants and desire additional time to continue those discussions; and

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and the BenQ Defendants have agreed to a modest extension of time

2

in which the BenQ Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Amended

3

Complaint;

4

NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed that:

5

1. The BenQ Defendants’ answer or other response to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint may

6
7
8
9
10

be filed on or before September 1, 2014, and
2. This extension does not affect the deadline for any other Defendant to answer or
otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the BenQ Defendants and Plaintiffs have caused this
Stipulation to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

11

Respectfully submitted,

12

For the BenQ Defendants:

13
14
15
16
17
18

Dated: July 30, 2014
By:

/s/ Joel B. Kleinman
JOEL B. KLEINMAN (Pro Hac Vice)
LISA M. KAAS (Pro Hac Vice)
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street NW
Washington, DC 20006-5403
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail:
[e-mail]
E-mail:
[e-mail]

19
20
21
22

JAMES TURKEN (Bar No. 89618)
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail:
[e-mail]

23
24

Attorneys for Defendants BenQ Corporation and
BenQ America Corp.

25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2

For Plaintiffs:
Dated: July 30, 2014

3

By:

4
5
6
7

/s/ Daniel A. Sasse
DANIEL A. SASSE (CSB No. 236234)
ANGELA J. YU (CSB No. 263212)
CROWELL & MORING LLP
3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

8
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ingram Micro Inc. and
Synnex Corporation

9
10
11
12
13

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this
document has been obtained from each of the above signatories.

14
15

Dated: July 30, 2014

/s/ Joel B. Kleinman
Joel B. Kleinman

16
17
18

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

8/4/14
Dated: _______________________

_________________________________________
Hon. Richard Seeborg
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT