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 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 12 OSTETLER AW Attorneys for Defendant Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan), T A Ltd. & H C TTORNEYS LLEVELAND 13 14 A AKER B 15
This Document Relates to Individual Case 21 No. 3:11-cv-03856-SI 22
STIPULATION REGARDING DEFENDANT MITSUI & CO. (TAIWAN), 24 LTD.'S RESPONSE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
2 and Tweeter Newco, LLC ("Tweeter") filed a First Amended Complaint (the "FAC") in the 3 above-captioned action against defendant Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan), Ltd. ("Mitsui Taiwan"), among 4 other defendants, on December 6, 2011. (See Master Dkt. #4283.) 5
6 the FAC for failure to state a claim. (See Master Dkt. #4522.) 7 8 having previously entered into a stipulation with Plaintiffs deferring Mitsui Taiwan's deadline to 9 respond to the FAC until after the Court ruled on Mitsui Taiwan's motion to dismiss for lack of 10 personal jurisdiction in the related case of Electrograph Systems, Inc., et al. v. Epson Imaging 11
WHEREAS, plaintiff Schultze Agency Services, LLC, on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2012 most of the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss
WHEREAS, Mitsui Taiwan did not participate in the defendants' joint motion to dismiss, 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.). (See Master Dkt. #4203.)
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2012, the Court denied Mitsui Taiwan's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in the related Electrograph action. (Master Dkt. #4742.)
WHEREAS, Mitsui Taiwan's deadline to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the FAC 16 in the instant case is February 22, 2012, twenty-one-days after the Court ruled on Mitsui Taiwan's 17 motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the related Electrograph action. (See Master Dkt. #4203.) 18
WHEREAS, in the interests of avoiding duplicative motion practice on the question of 20 personal jurisdiction, Mitsui Taiwan intends to join the defendants' joint motion to dismiss the 21 12(b)(2).
FAC in the instant case as opposed to filing a separate motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 22
WHEREAS, in the interests of efficiency and judicial economy, the parties to this Stipulation have agreed that Mitsui Taiwan, by joining in the defendants' joint motion to dismiss 25 the FAC, as opposed to filing a separate motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), shall 26 not be deemed to have waived its personal jurisdiction defense. 27
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the 28 undersigned counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, Tweeter, on the one hand, and Mitsui Taiwan, on the other hand, that Mitsui Taiwan, in joining in the defendants' joint motion to 2 dismiss the FAC, shall not be deemed to have waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. 3
Attestation: The filer of this document attests that the concurrence of the other signatories ...