UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
January 24, 2013
IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION
LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. PLAINTIFF,
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, ET AL., 25 DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Honorable Susan Y. Illston
HOLLY A. HOUSE (SB# 136045) email@example.com KEVIN C. McCANN (SB# 120874) firstname.lastname@example.org 2 SEAN D. UNGER (SB# 231694) email@example.com PAUL HASTINGS LLP 3 55 Second Street Twenty-Fourth Floor 4 San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 Telephone: (415) 856-7000 5 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 6 LEE F. BERGER (SB# 222756) firstname.lastname@example.org PAUL HASTINGS LLP 7 875 15th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 8 Telephone: (202) 551-1772 Facsimile: (202) 551-0172 9 Attorneys for Defendants 10 LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc. 11 12
This Document Relates to Individual Case
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER INCORPORATING AND No. 12-cv-00335 SI: APPLYING BRIEFING FROM OTHER 21
MDL CASES INTO VIEWSONIC VIEWSONIC CORPORATION, CORPORATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS 22 DEFENDANTS AND LG DISPLAY AMERICA, INC.'S COUNTERCLAIMS AND DEFENSES CONCERNING DUPLICATIVE RECOVERY
Plaintiff ViewSonic Corporation ("Plaintiff") and Defendants LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc. (collectively, "LG Display") stipulate as follows: 3
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (the "Complaint") in Case No. 3:12-cv-0335 SI (N.D. Cal.) on October 8, 2012; 5
WHEREAS, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (the "Motion") on October 22, 2012 (MDL Dkt. No. 7023); 7
WHEREAS, the Court granted the Motion in part and denied it in part on November 28, 2012 (MDL Dkt. No. 7255); 9 10 declaratory relief and certain affirmative defenses relating to issues of "duplicative recovery" (the 11
WHEREAS, Plaintiff intends to file a motion to dismiss the Counterclaims;
WHEREAS, the Court has granted motions to dismiss the Counterclaims in other cases, 14 see D.I. 5795 (Court's order denying leave to amend LG Display's Answers to include the 15 Counterclaims in various other TFT-LCD panel litigation MDL actions); D.I. 6833 (Court's order 16 granting several direct action plaintiffs' motion to dismiss LG Display's counterclaims and strike 17 their defenses regarding duplicative recovery); D.I. 7512 (Court's order granting Rockwell's 18 motion to dismiss LG Display's counterclaims and strike their defenses regarding duplicative 19 recovery) (together the "Orders"); 20 21 in the Tech Data case, 3:11-cv-05765-SI, D.I. 7090; 22 23 duplicative recovery defenses and counterclaims have no legal basis, see Orders (finding that LG 24 Display had not provided a legal basis for its proposed "violation of laws of duplicative recovery" 25 defenses or its related counterclaims); 26
WHEREAS, LG Display answered the Complaint and asserted counterclaims for "Counterclaims") on December 19, 2012 (MDL Dkt. No. 7384); 12
WHEREAS, a similar motion to dismiss the Counterclaims is currently before the Court
WHEREAS, LG Display wishes to preserve its right to appeal the Court's ruling that its
WHEREAS, the parties seek to avoid further briefing in this case regarding the Counterclaims, and thus seek to have the Court rule on Plaintiff's motion to dismiss on the basis 28 of prior briefing and without a hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by Plaintiff and LG Display, by and through their respective undersigned counsel, as follows: 3 4 this stipulation; 5 6 this case for purposes of briefing on Plaintiff's motion to dismiss: 19 and 20 21 stipulation and the briefing incorporated herein. 22
1. The parties agree that Plaintiff will file its Notice of Motion to Dismiss referencing
2. The parties agree that the following documents will be incorporated and applied in
a. D.I. 7090 (Tech Data's motion to dismiss LG Display's counterclaims and defenses regarding duplicative recovery) will be considered in place of Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Dismiss;
b. D.I. 7290 (LG Display's opposition to Tech Data's motion to dismiss LG Display's counterclaims and defenses regarding duplicative recovery) will be considered in place of LG Display's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss;
c. D.I. 7409 (Tech Data's reply in support of its motion to dismiss LG Display's counterclaims and defenses regarding duplicative recovery) will be considered in place of Plaintiff's Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss.
3. The parties agree that no further briefing on the Counterclaims will be necessary;
4. The Court may decide Plaintiff's motion to dismiss without a hearing based on this
5. In the event the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, Plaintiff agrees that LG Display has preserved its ability to challenge such order in the event of an appeal. 24 25 26 27 28
Pursuant to General Order No. 45, § X-B, the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of 2 this document has been obtained from each of the above signatories. 3 4
In accordance with the parties' stipulation set forth above, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/17 , 2013 By: Hon. Susan Illston United States District Judge
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.