In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation

Filing 771

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR DISMISAL OF HYNIX,. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 8/1/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2012)

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 HYNIX 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 HYNIX DEFENDANTS (Case No. 07-0086) 1 Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Keith 2 Alderman, Peter Burke, James Burt, California Coast Investigative Services, Anthony Cardinale, 3 Michael Chek, Alva Dee Cravens, Peter DeChristopher, Donna Fahner, Eric Ferguson, Donna 4 Jeanne Flanagan, Ina Fryer, Stuart Go, Sandra Green, Dan Harrison, Thomas Y. Huh, James 5 Knowles, Fred W. Krahmer, Harold Moore, Martha Mulvey, Joanne Myles, Thomas Nigro, 6 Carman Pellitteri, Travis Richardson, Richard Chris Rippel, Ryan Skorstad, Lynn Sweatman, 7 and Joseph Theisen, (collectively “Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs”) and defendants SK hynix Inc. 8 (formerly known as Hynix Semiconductor Inc.) and SK hynix America Inc. (formerly knowns as 9 Hynix Semiconductor America Inc.) (collectively “SK hynix”) (SK hynix and Indirect-Purchaser 10 Plaintiffs collectively, “The Stipulating Parties”) by and through their counsel hereby stipulate as 11 follows: 12 13 1. Consolidated Class Action Complaint against SK hynix in the above-entitled action.1 14 15 On May 1, 2009, the Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs filed a First Amended 2. The Stipulating Parties have reached a confidential settlement of all claims asserted by Plaintiffs against SK hynix in the above-entitled action. 16 3. In furtherance of the confidential settlement, the Stipulating Parties agree 17 that all claims asserted by Plaintiffs against SK hynix in the above-entitled action shall be 18 dismissed with prejudice, with Plaintiffs and Hynix each bearing their own costs and attorneys’ 19 fees and Hynix shall no longer be a party in this action.2 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 Hynix but were not included as named plaintiffs in the First Consolidated Class Action Complaint. 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 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST HYNIX DEFENDANTS (No.07-00086-SBA) (C N 07 0086) 1 2 IT IS SO STIPULATED. DATED: July 26, 2012. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 3 By: 4 5 Co-Lead Counsel for Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs 6 7 /s/ Steven N. Williams Steven N. Williams DATED: July 26, 2012. 8 9 ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP By: 10 /s/ Christopher T. Micheletti Christopher T. Micheletti Co-Lead Counsel for Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs 11 12 13 DATED July 26, 2012. 14 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: 15 /s/ Michael F. Tubach Michael F. Tubach Counsel for SK hynix Inc. (formerly known as Hynix Semiconductor Inc.) and SK hynix America Inc. (formerly known as Hynix Semiconductor America Inc. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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. 23 24 Dated: July 26, 2012 By: /s/ Steven N. Williams Steven N. Williams 25 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AGAINST HYNIX DEFENDANTS (No.07-00086-SBA) (C N 07 0086) 1 ORDER 2 3 For the reasons set forth in the above stipulation, and good cause appearing therefore, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 4 1. All claims asserted by Plaintiffs against SK hynix Inc. (formerly known as 5 Hynix Semiconductor Inc.) and SK hynix America Inc. (formerly known as Hynix 6 Semiconductor America Inc.) in the above-entitled action or any of its associated actions are 7 hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with Plaintiffs and SK hynix Inc. and SK hynix 8 America Inc. each bearing their own costs and attorneys’ fees. 9 10 2. SK hynix Inc. and SK hynix America Inc. shall no longer be parties in this action. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 DATED: 8/1/12 _______________________________ Saundra Brown Armstrong United States District Judge 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 HYNIX 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?