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)

Download PDF
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?