Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Oregon, Ex Rel. v. Au Optronics Corporation

December 12, 2011

STATE OF OREGON, EX REL.
JOHN KROGER, INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEY GENERAL,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Susan Illston United States District Judge

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP KENT M. ROGER, State Bar No, 95987 HERMAN J. HOYING, State Bar No. 257495 JENNIFER L. CALVERT, State Bar No. 258018 One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 Tel: 415.442.1000 Fax: 415.442.1001 5 kroger@morganlewis.com hhoying@morganlewis.com 6 jennifer.calvert@morganlewis.com Attorneys for Defendants HITACHI, LTD., HITACHI DISPLAYS, LTD., HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), INC.

This Document Relates to

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP T AW SAN FRANCISCO DB2/ 22836800.1 ATTORNEYS A L

WHEREAS plaintiff State of Oregon ("Oregon") filed the above captioned lawsuit on August 10, 2010; 3

WHEREAS Oregon filed a first amended complaint on April 15, 2011 ("Amended Complaint");

WHEREAS Defendants Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. 6 7 and Hitachi, Ltd. (collectively, the "Hitachi Defendants") and Defendants Chi Mei Corporation, Chi Mei Innolux Corporation, CMO Japan Co., Ltd., and Chi Mei Optoelectronic USA, Inc. 9

(collectively, the "Chi Mei Defendants") jointly filed with other defendants a motion to dismiss 10 Count III in its entirety and Count IV to the extent it seeks "disgorgement of profits" as a remedy 11 on June 6, 2011; 12 WHEREAS the Court denied Defendants' joint motion to dismiss Counts III and IV of the 13 14 Amended Complaint on July 12, 2011;

WHEREAS all defendants, including the Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants, entered into a stipulation with Oregon on July 21, 2011 that Defendants' deadline to answer the 17 Amended Complaint was August 12, 2011; 18

WHEREAS on July 21, 2011, the Court entered an order extending Defendants' deadline 19 to answer the Amended Complaint until August 12, 2011; 20 WHEREAS the Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants entered into a stipulation 16 21 22 with Oregon on August 11, 2011 that the Hitachi Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' deadline to answer the Amended Complaint is September 12, 2011; 24

WHEREAS on August 24, 2011, the Court entered an order extending the Hitachi 23 Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' deadline to answer the Amended Complaint until 26 September 12, 2011; 27

WHEREAS the Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants entered into a stipulation 2 with Oregon on September 9, 2011 that the Hitachi Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' 3 deadline to answer the Amended Complaint is September 26, 2011; 4

WHEREAS on September 13, 2011, the Court entered an order extending the Hitachi 5 Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' deadline to answer the Amended Complaint until 6 7 September 26, 2011;

WHEREAS the Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants entered into a stipulation 9 with Oregon on September 23, 2011 that the Hitachi Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' 10 deadline to answer the Amended Complaint is November 4, 2011; 11 WHEREAS on September 28, 2011, the Court entered an order extending the Hitachi 12 Defendants' and Chi ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.