In re: Rambus Antitrust Litigation

Filing 72

STIPULATION AND ORDER 71 OF DISMISSAL OF ALL ACTIONS, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 4/8/09. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MAURA L. REES, State Bar No. 191698 ANTHONY J WEIBELL, State Bar No. 238850 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 E-mail: mrees@wsgr.com; aweibell@wsgr.com Attorneys for Defendant RAMBUS INC. Robert S. Green (State Bar No. 136183) Jenelle Welling (State Bar No. 209480) Brian S. Umpierre (State Bar No. 236399) GREEN WELLING LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2750 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 477-6700 Facsimile: (415) 477-6710 cand.uscourts@classcounsel.com Liaison and Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs [Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) Case No. C 06-4852 RMW ) ) STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL ) AND [] ORDER ) ) C-06-04853-RMW ) C-06-04987-RMW ) C-06-04997-RMW ) C-06-05455-RMW ) ) ) ) *E-FILED - 4/8/09* IN RE RAMBUS ANTITRUST LITIGATION This document relates to: ALL ACTIONS STIPULATED DISMISSAL NO. C 06-4852 RMW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Consolidation Order dated October 18, 2006, the In Re Rambus Antitrust Litigation matter comprises the following actions: Chernomorets v. Rambus, No. C 06-4852, Grande v. Rambus, No. C 06-4853, Seley v. Rambus, No. C 06-4987, Alvarez v. Rambus, No. C 06-4997, Winder v. Rambus, No. C 06-5455, and Rovere v. Rambus, No. C 071832 (the "Consolidated Actions"); and WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendant have agreed to dismissal of the action In Re Rambus Antitrust Litigation, including all of the Consolidated Actions, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees; and WHEREAS, because no class has been certified, notice to the putative class is not required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), and no class notice has previously been provided; THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by Plaintiffs and Defendant, through their respective counsel of record, as follows: 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), the action In Re Rambus Antitrust Litigation (including all of the Consolidated Actions) is hereby dismissed. Each party will bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. IT IS SO STIPULATED. DATED: April 6, 2009 GREEN WELLING LLP By: /s/ Robert S. Green Jenelle Welling 595 Market Street, Suite 2750 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 477-6700 Facsimile: (415) 477-6710 Liaison and Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs Christine Pedigo Bartholomew Rosemary M. Rivas FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 665 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 398-8700 Facsimile: (415) 398-8704 STIPULATED DISMISSAL NO. C 06-4852 RMW -1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATED DISMISSAL NO. C 06-4852 RMW Christopher Lovell Merrick S. Rayle LOVELL STUART HALEBIAN LLP 212 Wood Street Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Telephone: (831) 333-0309 Facsimile: (831) 333-0325 Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs Dated: April 6, 2009 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI By: /s/ Maura L. Rees 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Facsimile: (650) 493-6811 Attorneys for Defendant Rambus Inc. ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 4/8/09 DATED: __________ THE HONORABLE RONALD M. WHYTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SIGNATURE ATTESTATION I, Robert S. Green, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file this STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER. In compliance with General Order 45(X), I hereby attest that all signatories have concurred in this filing. Dated: April 6, 2009 By: /s/ Robert S. Green -2-

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?