Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION)


January 12, 2012

STATE OF OREGON, EX REL.
JOHN KROGER,
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 2 HERMAN J. HOYING, State Bar No. 257495 JENNIFER L. CALVERT, State Bar No. 258018 3 One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 4 Tel: 415.442.1000 Fax: 415.442.1001 5 kroger@morganlewis.com hhoying@morganlewis.com 6 jennifer.calvert@morganlewis.com 7 Attorneys for Defendants HITACHI, LTD., HITACHI DISPLAYS, LTD., HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), INC. 9 10

This Document Relates to Individual Case No. Attorney General, 3:10-cv-4346 SI 15

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

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 4 Complaint"); 5

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 8 (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 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 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 Mei Defendants' deadline to answer the Amended Complaint until 13 14 November 4, 2011;

WHEREAS the Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants entered into a stipulation with Oregon on November 3, 2011 that the Hitachi Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' 17 deadline to answer the Amended Complaint is December 9, 2011; 18

WHEREAS on November 4, 2011, the Court entered an order extending the Hitachi Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' deadline to answer the Amended Complaint until 20 December 9, 2011; 21 22

WHEREAS the Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants entered into a stipulation with Oregon on December 6, 2011 that the Hitachi Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' 24 deadline to answer the Amended Complaint is January 13, 2012; 25

WHEREAS on December 12, 2011, the Court entered an order extending the Hitachi 23 Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' deadline to answer the Amended Complaint until January 27 13, 2012;

WHEREAS extending the Hitachi Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' time to respond 2 to the Amended Complaint will not alter the date of any other event or deadline already fixed by 3 the Court; 4

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the 5 undersigned counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, Oregon, on the one hand, and the 6 7 Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants on the other hand, as follows:

FILER'S ATTESTATION

I, Kent M. Roger, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file 3 this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby 4 attest that Michael M. Kelley and Harrison J. Frahn IV concur in this filing. 5

/s/ Kent M. Roger Kent M. Roger Attorneys for Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., and Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation set forth above and pursuant to Rule 6-1(a) of the Civil

Local Rules, IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

Dated: January ___, 2012 5

By

20120112

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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