UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
November 30, 2011
IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION P.C. RICHARD & SON LONG ISLAND CORPORATION, ET AL.,
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, ET AL.,
Paul P. Eyre Ernest E. Vargo 2 Michael E. Mumford Erin K. Murdock-Park 3 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP PNC Center 4 1900 East Ninth Street, Suite 3200 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-3482 5 Telephone: 216.621.0200 Facsimile: 216.696.0740 6 firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com 7 firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com 8 Tracy L. Cole 9 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza 10 New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4210 11 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 LLP firstname.lastname@example.org Attorneys for Defendants Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan), Ltd. and Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc.
This Document Relates to Individual
STIPULATION OF EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS MITSUI & CO. (TAIWAN), LTD. AND MITSUI & CO. (U.S.A.), INC. TO RESPOND TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Clerk's Action Required
WHEREAS, plaintiffs P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, Marta Cooperative 2 of America, Inc., and ABC Appliance, Inc. ("Plaintiffs") filed a First Amended Complaint in the 3 above-captioned action against defendant Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan), Ltd. ("Mitsui Taiwan") and Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc. ("Mitsui USA"), among other defendants, on June 15, 2011. 5
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs, Mitsui Taiwan and Mitsui USA, among other defendants, 6 previously entered into a stipulation, giving Mitsui Taiwan and Mitsui USA until December 5, 7 2011 to move to dismiss, answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint. (See 8 Dkt. #28; MDL Dkt. #3956). 9
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2011, Mitsui Taiwan intends to move to dismiss the 10 amended complaint in the related case of Electrograph Systems, Inc., et al. v. Epson Imaging 11 Devices Corp., et al., Individual Docket No. 3:10-cv-00117-SI (N.D. Cal.), Master Docket No. 3:07-md-01827-SI (N.D. Cal.) on the grounds that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Mitsui Taiwan.
WHEREAS, Mitsui Taiwan also intends to raise lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense in the instant case. 16
WHEREAS, the Court's ruling on Mitsui Taiwan's motion to dismiss in Electrograph 17 may be relevant to the issue of personal jurisdiction in the instant case. 18
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs, Mitsui Taiwan and Mitsui USA have reached an agreement, 19 pursuant to Civil Rule L.R. 6-1(a), that Mitsui Taiwan and Mitsui USA shall have an additional 20 extension of time until twenty-one (21) days after the Court rules on Mitsui Taiwan's motion to 21 dismiss in Electrograph, in which to move against, answer, or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' 22 First Amended Complaint. 23
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the 24 undersigned counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and Mitsui 25
Taiwan and Mitsui USA, on the other hand, that Mitsui Taiwan and Mitsui USA's deadline to 26 move to dismiss, answer, or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint will be twenty-27 one (21) days after the Court issues its order on Mitsui Taiwan's motion to dismiss the amended 28 complaint in Electrograph.
Attestation: The filer of this document attests that the concurrence of the other signatories thereto has been obtained. 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
By: Hon. SUSAN ILLSTON
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.