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.

In re Cathode Ray Tube (Crt) Antitrust Litigation

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

July 3, 2013

In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION. MDL No. 1917
v.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N. V. et al., Defendants. This Document Relates to: Individual Case No. 13-cv-2776 SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION and SHARP ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., Plaintiffs,

Stephen E. Taylor, (SBN 058452) Jonathan A. Patchen, (SBN 237346) TAYLOR & COMPANY LAW OFFICES, LLP, San Francisco, California, Kenneth A. Gallo, (Pro Hac Vice to be submitted) Joseph J. Simons, (Pro Hac Vice to be submitted) Craig A. Benson, (Pro Hac Vice to be submitted) PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sharp Electronics Corporation and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc.

JON V. SWENSON, (SBN 233054) BAKER BOTTS LLP, JOHN M. TALADAY, (pro hac vice) JOSEPH OSTOYICH, (pro hac vice) ERIK T. KOONS, (pro hac vice) CHARLES M. MALAISE, (pro hac vice) TIFFANY GELOTT, (pro hac vice) BAKER BOTTS LLP, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Defendants Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. and Philips Electronics North America Corporation

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING THE COMPLAINT IN THE SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION AND SHARP ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. ACTION

SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiffs Sharp Electronics Corporation and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and the undersigned Defendants have conferred by and through their counsel and, subject to the Court's approval, HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, on June 17, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Summons and Complaint in the Northern District of California, Sharp Electronics Corp., et al. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., et al., Case No. 13-cv-2776 (the "Sharp Summons" and the "Sharp Complaint, " respectively);

WHEREAS, on June 18, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an Administrative Motion Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12 To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, identifying Sharp Electronics Corp., et al. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., et al. as related to In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-5944-SC (MDL No. 1917);

WHEREAS, on June 21, 2013, this Court entered an Order finding that Sharp Electronics Corp., et al. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., et al. is related to In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-5944-SC (MDL No. 1917);

WHEREAS, the undersigned Defendants named in the Sharp Complaint ("Defendants") have not yet been formally served with process;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the undersigned Plaintiffs and Defendants, as follows:

1. Each of the undersigned Defendants shall be deemed served with the Sharp Summons and Complaint as of the date of execution of this Stipulation.

2. The Sharp Complaint asserts similar causes of action alleged by the following Direct Action Plaintiff complaints: Stoebner v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 11-cv-05381 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 7, 2011); Target Corp. v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., No. 11-cv-05514 (N.D. Cal.) (Jan. 6, 2012); P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 12-cv-02648 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Schultze Agency Servs., LLC v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 12-cv-02649 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-06396 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Interbond Corp. of Am. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-06275 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-06397 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Siegel v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-05502 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Office Depot, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-06276 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Best Buy Co., Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-05513 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Electrograph Systems, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-01656 (N.D. Cal.) (Mar. 10, 2011); Tech Data Corporation, et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd. et al., Case No. 8:12-cv-02795 (M.D. Fla.) (Dec. 11, 2012); and Sharp Electronics Corporation, et al. v. Hitachi Ltd., et al., Case No. 13-cv-1173 (N.D. Cal.) (Mar. 15, 2013).

3. The Sharp Complaint seeks damages based on an alleged conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for CRTs, as set forth in the Sharp Complaint; the Sharp Complaint does not assert any claims that Defendants have combined and conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of products containing CRTs ("CRT Finished Products").

4. On August 17, 2012, Defendants filed motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the following Direct Action Plaintiff complaints (the "Dispositive Motions"): Stoebner v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 11-cv-05381 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 7, 2011); Target Corp. v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., No. 11-cv-05514 (N.D. Cal.) (Jan. 6, 2012); P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 12-cv-02648 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Schultze Agency Servs., LLC v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 12-cv-02649 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-06396 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Interbond Corp. of Am. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-06275 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-06397 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Siegel v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-05502 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Office Depot, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-06276 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); Best Buy Co., Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-05513 (N.D. Cal.) (Nov. 14, 2011); and Electrograph Systems, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 11-cv-01656 (N.D. Cal.) (Mar. 10, 2011). (Dkt. Nos. 1316, 1317, 1319).

5. Pending the resolution of the Dispositive Motions, the undersigned Defendants do not need to answer or otherwise respond to the Sharp Complaint. Once the Honorable Samuel Conti rules on the Dispositive Motions, the parties agree to set a reasonable deadline for Defendants' answers and/or a reasonable briefing schedule for Defendants' motions to dismiss Sharp's Complaint.

6. The undersigned parties jointly and respectfully request that the Court enter this stipulation as an order.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE,

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.