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)
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?