In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation

Filing 775

STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 11/13/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2012)

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

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AS TO
SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
COMPANY, LTD. PURSUANT TO FED.
R. CIV. PROC. 41(a)(2)

15
16

This document Relates to:

17

ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS SAMSUNG
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD. (Case No. 07-0086-SBA)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Keith
Alderman, Peter Burke, James Burt, California Coast Investigative Services, Anthony Cardinale,
Michael Chek, Alva Dee Cravens, Peter DeChristopher, Donna Fahner, Eric Ferguson, Donna
Jeanne Flanagan, Ina Fryer, Fred Gentile, Stuart Go, Sandra Green, Dan Harrison, Thomas Y.
Huh, James Knowles, Fred W. Krahmer, Harold Moore, Martha Mulvey, Joanne Myles, Thomas
Nigro, Carman Pellitteri, Travis Richardson, Richard Chris Rippel, Ryan Skorstad, Lynn
Sweatman, and Joseph Theisen, (collectively “Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs”) and defendants
Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (“SSI”) and Samsung Electronics Corporation, Ltd. (“SEC”) (with
Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs, SSI and SEC as, collectively, “The Stipulating Parties”) by and
through their counsel hereby stipulate as follows:

11
12

1.

Consolidated Class Action Complaint against SSI and SEC in the above-entitled action.1

13
14
15

2.

18
19
20

The Stipulating Parties have reached a confidential settlement of all claims

asserted by Plaintiffs against SSI and SEC in the above-entitled action, in which SSI and SEC
have denied any liability or wrongdoing.

16
17

On May 1, 2009, the Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs filed a First Amended

3.

In furtherance of the confidential settlement, the Stipulating Parties agree

that all claims asserted by Plaintiffs against SSI and SEC in the above-entitled action shall be
dismissed with prejudice, with Plaintiffs and SSI and SEC each bearing their own costs and
attorneys’ fees and SSI and SEC shall no longer be parties in this action.2
IT IS SO STIPULATED.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

Plaintiffs Keith Alderman, Fred Gentile, James Knowles, Fred W. Krahmer, Carman Pellitteri,
Ryan Skorstad, and Lynn Sweatman, had previously filed complaints against SSI and SEC 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
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS SAMSUNG
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD. (Case No. 07-0086-SBA)

1

1

DATED: November 9, 2012.

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP

2
3

By:

/s/ Steven N. Williams
Steven N. Williams

4

Co-Lead Counsel for Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs

5
6

DATED: November 9, 2012.

ZELLE HOFMANN
VOELBEL & MASON LLP

7
8

By:

/s/ Christopher T. Micheletti
Christopher T. Micheletti

9
Co-Lead Counsel for Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs

10
11
DATED: November 9, 2012.

LATHAM & WATKINS

12
13

By:

/s/ Harold Barza
Harold Barza

14
Counsel for Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.
and Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.

15
16
17
18
19
20

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.

21
22

Dated: November 9, 2012

By:

/s/ Steven N. Williams
Steven N. Williams

23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS SAMSUNG
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD. (Case No. 07-0086-SBA)

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

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 Plaintiffs against Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.

(“SSI”) and Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. (“SEC”) in the above-entitled action or any of
its associated actions are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with Plaintiffs and SSI and
SEC each bearing their own costs and attorneys’ fees.
2.

SSI and SEC shall no longer be parties in this action.

9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12
13
14

DATED: _12/13/12

_______________________________
Saundra Brown Armstrong
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS SAMSUNG
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD. (Case No. 07-0086-SBA)

3