UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
November 30, 2011
IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION
OFFICE DEPOT, INC.,
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, ET AL., CLERK'S ACTION REQUIRED DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Susan Illston
Paul P. Eyre Ernest E. Vargo Michael E. Mumford Erin K. Murdock-Park 3 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP PNC Center 4 1900 East Ninth Street, Suite 3200 Cleveland, Ohio 44114-3482 Telephone: 216.621.0200 Facsimile: 216.696.0740 6 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org 7 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org 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 email@example.com Attorneys for Defendant Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan),
This Document Relates to Individual
STIPULATION OF EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT MITSUI & CO. (TAIWAN), LTD. TO RESPOND TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Taiwan"), among other defendants, on September 19, 2011. 4 5 first giving Mitsui Taiwan, among other defendants, thirty (30) days after the filing of a First 6 Complaint, (See Dkt. #35; MDL Dkt. #3455), and the second giving Mitsui Taiwan until 8 Complaint. (See Dkt. #44; MDL Dkt. #3810.) 10
11 amended complaint in the related case of Electrograph Systems, Inc., et al. v. Epson Imaging 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 16 in the instant case. 17 18 may be relevant to the issue of personal jurisdiction in the instant case. 19
WHEREAS, plaintiff Office Depot, Inc. ("Office Depot") filed a First Amended Complaint in the above-captioned action against defendant Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan), Ltd. ("Mitsui 3
WHEREAS, Office Depot and Mitsui Taiwan previously entered into two stipulations, the Amended Complaint to move to dismiss, answer, or otherwise respond to the First Amended 7 December 1, 2011 to move to dismiss, answer, or otherwise respond to the First Amended 9
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2011, Mitsui Taiwan intends to move to dismiss the
WHEREAS, the Court's ruling on Mitsui Taiwan's motion to dismiss in Electrograph
WHEREAS, in the interests of efficiency and judicial economy, Office Depot and Mitsui Taiwan have reached an agreement, pursuant to Civil Rule L.R. 6-1(a), that Mitsui Taiwan shall 21 have an additional extension of time until twenty-one (21) days after the Court rules on Mitsui 22 Taiwan's motion to dismiss in Electrograph, in which to move against, answer, or otherwise 23 respond to Office Depot's First Amended Complaint. 24
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the 25 undersigned counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, Office Depot, on the one hand, and 26 Mitsui Taiwan, on the other hand, that Mitsui Taiwan's deadline to move to dismiss, answer, or 27 otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint will be twenty-one (21) days after the Court 28 issues its order on Mitsui Taiwan's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in Electrograph.
Attestation: The filer of this document attests that the concurrence of the other signatories 2 thereto has been obtained.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
By: Hon. SUSAN ILLSTON
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.