The opinion of the court was delivered by: Brendan P. Cullen Judge Susan Illston
Individual Case No. 11-cv-02495
This Document Relates to STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SERVICE JACO ELECTRONICS, INC., AND SCHEDULING SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
WHEREAS Plaintiff Jaco Electronics, Inc. ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint (the"Complaint") in the above-captioned case against Defendants AU Optronics Corporation; AU
Optronics Corporation America; Chi Mei Corporation; Chimei Innolux Corporation (f/k/a Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation); Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc.; CMO Japan Co., Ltd.;
Nexgen Mediatech, Inc.; Nexgen Mediatech USA, Inc.; Epson Imaging Devices Corporation;
Epson Electronics America, Inc.; HannStar Display Corporation; LG Display Co. Ltd.; LG
Display America, Inc.; Renesas Electronics America; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI 8America, Inc.; Sanyo Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd.; Sanyo North America Corporation; Sharp Corporation; Sharp Electronics Corporation; Tatung Company of America, Inc.; Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.; Toshiba Mobile Display Technology Co., Ltd.; and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (the "Original Defendants") on May 20, 2011;
WHEREAS Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on July 12, 2011, naming as additional defendants, among other parties, Philips Electronics North America Corporation 15 and Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (the "Stipulating Defendants");
WHEREAS on July 14, 2011, Plaintiff and the Original Defendants stipulated that the Original Defendants' deadline to move to dismiss, answer, or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint would be October 12, 2011; WHEREAS Plaintiff wishes to avoid the burden and expense of serving processon the Stipulating Defendants;
WHEREAS the Stipulating Defendants desire a reasonable amount of time torespond to the Complaint;
WHEREAS Plaintiff and the Stipulating Defendants believe that proceeding on a unified response date will create efficiency for the Court and the parties by reducing duplicative motion practice;
THEREFORE, Plaintiff and the Stipulating Defendants hereby agree:
1. The Stipulating Defendants waive service of the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d). This stipulation does not constitute a waiver by theStipulating Defendants of any other substantive or procedural defense, including but not limited to the defense of lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue.
2. The Stipulating Defendants' deadline to move to dismiss, answer, or otherwise respond to the First Amended ...