Ostrowski v. NVIDIA Corporation et al

Filing 72

ORDER granting 71 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 67 Amended Complaint, filed by NVIDIA Corporation, Gigabyte Global Business Corporation, ASUS Computer International. Responses to any Rule 12 motions due by 8/14/2015. Replies due by 9/4/2015. Motion Hearing set for 9/18/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Charles R. Breyer. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 7/1/2015. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

ROBERT P. VARIAN (SBN 107459)
[e-mail]
JAMES N. KRAMER (SBN 154709)
[e-mail]
STEPHEN M. KNASTER (SBN 146236)
[e-mail]
ALEXANDER K. TALARIDES (SBN 268068)
[e-mail]
JUDY KWAN (SBN 273930)
[e-mail]
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
The Orrick Building
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
NVIDIA CORPORATION, ASUS COMPUTER
INTERNATIONAL, GIGABYTE GLOBAL
BUSINESS CORPORATION, and
TIGERDIRECT, INC.

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16
17

IN RE: NVIDIA GTX 970 GRAPHICS CHIP
LITIGATION

Master Case No. 3:15-cv-00760-CRB

18

STIPULATION AND ORDER
EXTENDING TIME FOR
DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CIVIL
LOCAL RULE 6-2

19
20

This Document Relates to: All Actions

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
3:15-CV-00760-CRB

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiffs and Defendants NVIDIA Corporation

2

(“NVIDIA”), Asus Computer International, Gigabyte Global Business Corporation d/b/a Giga-

3

Byte Technology Co. Ltd. and TigerDirect, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), through their

4

respective counsel, HEREBY STIPULATE and AGREE as follows:

5

RECITALS

6

WHEREAS, this action was consolidated by Court order dated March 24, 2015;

7

WHEREAS, the Court’s order granted parties’ stipulation for Defendants’ to file

8

responsive pleadings to the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“CAC”) within

9

thirty (30) days after service, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties and approved by the

10

Court;

11

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their CAC on June 8, 2015;

12

WHEREAS, Defendants’ response to the CAC is presently due on or before July 8, 2015;

13

WHEREAS, the parties have conferred and agreed to extend the time by which

14

Defendants must respond to the CAC to July 15, 2015;

15

WHEREAS, the parties have conferred and have also agreed to extend the deadline for

16

Plaintiffs to file oppositions to any Rule 12 motions by August 14, 2015 and for Defendants to

17

file any reply by September 4, 2015;

18
19

WHEREAS, the extension of time agreed upon by the parties will not alter or affect any
other event or deadline fixed by the Court’s Scheduling Order;

20
21

STIPULATION
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Plaintiffs and Defendants, through their

22

designated counsel of record, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, that Defendants may respond to

23

the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on or before July 15, 2015. Plaintiffs

24

will have until August 14, 2015 to file any opposition, and Defendants, until September 4, 2015

25

to file any reply. The hearing on the motion shall be set for September 18, 2015 at 10 a.m., or at

26

the Court’s earliest convenience.

27
28
-2-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
3:15-CV-00760-CRB

1

Dated: June 29, 2015

WHATLEY KALLAS LLP

2
3

By:

4

/s/ Alan M. Mansfield
Alan M. Mansfield
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

5
6

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.

7
8

By:

9

/s/ L. Timothy Fisher
L. Timothy Fisher
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10
11

Dated: June 29, 2015

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

12
By:

13
14
15
16

/s/ Robert P. Varian
ROBERT P. VARIAN
Attorneys for Defendants
NVIDIA CORPORATION, ASUS
COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL,
GIGABYTE GLOBAL BUSINESS
CORPORATION
and TIGERDIRECT, INC.

17
18
19
20

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, §X(B), I attest under penalty of
perjury that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from its signatory.

21
Dated: June 29, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

22
23
/s/ Robert P. Varian
ROBERT P. VARIAN

24
25
26
27
28
-3-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
3:15-CV-00760-CRB

1

ORDER

2
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
4

Signed: July 1,2015

_________________________

5
6

Charles R. Breyer
United States District Judge

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
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
3:15-CV-00760-CRB