UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
August 30, 2011
IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION
JACO ELECTRONICS, INC.,
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Susan Illston
Garrard R. Beeney (NY Reg. No. 1656172) (firstname.lastname@example.org) SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street 3 New York, New York 10004-2498 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 4 Facsimile: (212) 558-3588 5 Brendan P. Cullen (SBN 194057) (email@example.com) 6 SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 1870 Embarcadero Road 7 Palo Alto, California 94303 Telephone: (650) 461-5600 8 Facsimile: (650) 461-5700 9 Counsel for Defendants Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. 10 11 12
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] REGARDING SERVICE AND SCHEDULING ORDER
This Document Relates to Individual Individual Case No.: 11-cv-02495
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; 6 Epson Electronics America, Inc.; HannStar Display Corporation; LG Display Co. Ltd.; LG 7 Display America, Inc.; Renesas Electronics America; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI 8 America, Inc.; Sanyo Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd.; Sanyo North America Corporation; Sharp 9 2 Corporation; Sharp Electronics Corporation; Tatung Company of America, Inc.; Toshiba 10 Corporation; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.; Toshiba Mobile Display 11 Technology Co., Ltd.; and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (the "Original 12 Defendants") on May 20, 2011; 13 WHEREAS Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on July 12, 2011, naming 14 as additional defendants, among other parties, Philips Electronics North America Corporation 15 and Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (the "Stipulating Defendants"); 16 WHEREAS on July 14, 2011, Plaintiff and the Original Defendants stipulated that 17 the Original Defendants' deadline to move to dismiss, answer, or otherwise respond to the First 18 Amended Complaint would be October 12, 2011; 19 WHEREAS Plaintiff wishes to avoid the burden and expense of serving process 20 on the Stipulating Defendants; 21 WHEREAS the Stipulating Defendants desire a reasonable amount of time to 22 respond to the Complaint; 23 WHEREAS Plaintiff and the Stipulating Defendants believe that proceeding on a 24 unified response date will create efficiency for the Court and the parties by reducing duplicative 25 motion practice; 26 27 28
THEREFORE, Plaintiff and the Stipulating Defendants hereby agree:
1. The Stipulating Defendants waive service of the First Amended
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d). This stipulation does
not constitute a waiver by the
Stipulating Defendants of any other substantive or procedural defense,
including but not limited 5 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
7 otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint will be October 12, 2011.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
I, Brendan P. Cullen, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Service and Scheduling. In compliance with General Order 3 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Jason C. Murray concurred in this filing. 4 5
Dated: August 25, 2011
s/ Brendan P. Cullen
Brendan P. Cullen
Having considered the foregoing stipulation, and good cause appearing,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.