In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation
Filing
768
STIPULATION AND ORDER, Hitachi America, Ltd terminated.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 6/4/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2012)
1
[Counsel set forth on signature page]
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
OAKLAND DIVISION
10
11
12
No. C07-00086 SBA
IN RE FLASH MEMORY ANTITRUST
LITIGATION
13
14
15
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AS TO
HITACHI AND RENESAS
DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO FED. R.
CIV. PROC. 41(a)(2)
This document Relates to:
ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST HITACHI AND
RENESAS DEFENDANTS (Case No. 07-0086)
1
Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Keith
2
Alderman, Christopher Bessette, Peter Burke, James Burt, California Coast Investigative
3
Services, Anthony Cardinale, Michael Chek, Alva Dee Cravens, Peter DeChristopher, Donna
4
Fahner, Eric Ferguson, Donna Jeanne Flanagan, Ina Fryer, Stuart Go, Sandra Green, Dan
5
Harrison, Thomas Y. Huh, James Knowles, Fred W. Krahmer, Harold Moore, Martha Mulvey,
6
Joanne Myles, Thomas Nigro, Carman Pellitteri, Travis Richardson, Richard Chris Rippel, Ryan
7
Skorstad, Lynn Sweatman, and Joseph Theisen, (collectively “Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs”) and
8
defendants Hitachi America, Ltd., Hitachi, Ltd., Renesas Electronics Corporation (as successor
9
to Renesas Technology Corporation), and Renesas Electronics America, Inc. (as successor to
10
Renesas Technology America, Inc. and Hitachi Semiconductor (America) Inc.) (“Hitachi-
11
Renesas”) (collectively “The Stipulating Parties”) by and through their counsel hereby stipulate
12
as follows:
13
14
1.
On May 1, 2009, the Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint against Hitachi-Renesas in the above-entitled action.1
15
2.
The Stipulating Parties have reached a confidential settlement of all claims
16
asserted by Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs against Hitachi-Renesas in the above-entitled action.
17
///
18
///
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
26
27
1
Plaintiffs Keith Alderman, James Knowles, Fred W. Krahmer, Carman Pellitteri, Ryan
Skorstad, and Lynn Sweatman, had previously filed complaints against Hitachi-Renesas but were
not included as named plaintiffs in the First Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
28
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST HITACHI AND
RENESAS DEFENDANTS (No.07-00086-SBA)
(C
N 07 0086)
1
3.
In furtherance of the confidential settlement, the Stipulating Parties agree
2
that all claims asserted by Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs against Hitachi-Renesas in the above-
3
entitled action shall be dismissed with prejudice, with Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs and Hitachi-
4
Renesas each bearing their own costs and attorneys’ fees and Hitachi-Renesas shall no longer be
5
a party in this action.2
6
7
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
DATED: June 4, 2012.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
8
By:
9
10
Co-Lead Counsel for Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs
11
12
/s/ Steven N. Williams
Steve N. Williams
DATED: June 4, 2012.
13
14
ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON
LLP
By:
15
/s/ Christopher T. Micheletti
Christopher T. Micheletti
Co-Lead Counsel for Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs
16
17
18
DATED: June 4, 2012.
19
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
By:
20
/s/ Craig Seebald
Craig Seebald
Counsel for Hitachi America, Ltd., Hitachi,
Ltd., Renesas Electronics Corporation, and
Renesas Electronics America, Inc.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
The confidential settlement also includes the following plaintiffs, who dismissed their claims
with prejudice as to all defendants on April 25, 2012 (Dkt. 764): Jacob Greenwell, Sarah Hecht,
Jean McClellan-Chambers, Jamac Enterprises, Robin McEntee, Trong Nguyen, Jason Perkins,
Travis Weibe, Joshua Steele, Benjamin Northway, Lindsey Morgan, Kelly Fahner, George
Davis, Andrew Kindt, Tristen Woods, and Jai Paguirigan.
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST HITACHI AND
RENESAS DEFENDANTS (No.07-00086-SBA)
(C
N 07 0086)
1
2
3
ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45
Pursuant to General Order No. 45, § X(B), regarding signatures, I attest that the
concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from its signatories.
4
5
Dated: June 4, 2012
By:
/s/ Steven N. Williams
Steven N. Williams
6
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 FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST HITACHI AND
RENESAS DEFENDANTS (No.07-00086-SBA)
(C
N 07 0086)
1
2
3
4
ORDER
For the reasons set forth in the above stipulation, and good cause appearing
therefore, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.
All claims asserted by Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs against Hitachi-
5
Renesas in the above-entitled action or any of its associated actions are hereby DISMISSED
6
WITH PREJUDICE, with Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs and Hitachi America, Ltd., Hitachi, Ltd.,
7
Renesas Electronics Corporation (as successor to Renesas Technology Corporation), and
8
Renesas Electronics America, Inc. (as successor to Hitachi Semiconductor (America) Inc. and
9
Renesas Technology America, Inc.), each bearing their own costs and attorneys’ fees.
10
2.
Hitachi America, Ltd., Hitachi, Ltd., Renesas Electronics Corporation (as
11
successor to Renesas Technology Corporation), and Renesas Electronics America, Inc. (as
12
successor to Hitachi Semiconductor (America) Inc. and Renesas Technology America, Inc.)shall
13
no longer be a party in this action.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
DATED: _6/4/12
_______________________________
Saundra Brown Armstrong
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST HITACHI AND
RENESAS DEFENDANTS (No.07-00086-SBA)
(C
N 07 0086)
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?