State of Florida, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs v. AU Optronics Corporation et al, No. 3:2010cv03517 - Document 82 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER granting request to extend time to respond (10 - 3517) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2011)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
State of Florida, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Af...tronics Corporation et al 1 2 3 4 Doc. 82 Harrison J. Frahn IV (SBN 206822) hfrahn@stblaw.com SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 2550 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 251-5000 Facsimile: (650) 251-5002 5 6 7 Attorneys for Defendants Chimei Innolux Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., and CMO Japan Co., Ltd. 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 12 13 14 IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION MDL NO. 3:07-md-1827-SI 15 16 This Document Relates to Individual Case No. 3:10-cv-03517-SI 17 18 STATE OF FLORIDA, 21 22 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, 19 20 CASE NO. 3:10-cv-03517-SI vs. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 The undersigned counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, hereby respectfully request an extension of the deadline for Defendants Chimei Innolux Corporation (f/k/a Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation), Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., and CMO Japan Co., Ltd. (collectively, the “Chi Mei Defendants”), and Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., and Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. (collectively, the “Hitachi Defendants”), to respond to the STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 3:10- CV-3517-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI Dockets.Justia.com 1 amended complaint filed by Plaintiff State of Florida on April 13, 2011, in the above-captioned 2 litigation (the “Amended Complaint”). 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 WHEREAS the Chi Mei Defendants and Hitachi Defendants, jointly with other Defendants in this action, filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on May 20, 2011; WHEREAS the Court entered an order denying Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on September 15, 2011; WHEREAS on September 29, 2011, the Court entered an order on extending Defendants’ deadline to answer the Amended Complaint to October 28, 2011; WHEREAS on October 26, 2011, the Court entered an order on extending the Chi Mei and Hitachi Defendants’ deadline to answer the Amended Complaint to November 11, 2011; WHEREAS Plaintiff State of Florida and the Chi Mei Defendants have agreed to a settlement in principle of the above-captioned litigation; WHEREAS Plaintiff State of Florida and the Hitachi Defendants have agreed to a settlement in principle of the above-captioned litigation, subject to board approval; WHEREAS the parties would benefit from additional time to continue to negotiate the terms of that settlement; WHEREAS extending the time for the Chi Mei Defendants and Hitachi Defendants to 18 answer the Amended Complaint would not alter the date of any other event or deadline already 19 fixed by the Court; 20 21 22 23 THEREFORE, Plaintiff State of Florida and the Chi Mei Defendants and Hitachi Defendants, by their respective counsel, stipulate and agree as follows: The Chi Mei Defendants and Hitachi Defendants will have until December 9, 2011 to answer the Amended Complaint. 24 25 26 27 28 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 3:10- CV-3517-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI 1 2 3 4 Dated: November 9, 2011 Respectfully submitted, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA By: : /s/ Nicholas J. Weilhammer Nicholas J. Weilhammer 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 R. Scott Palmer Lizabeth A. Brady Nicholas J. Weilhammer (pro hac vice) Eli Friedman Office of the Attorney General State of Florida PL-01, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 (850) 414-3300 / (850) 488-9134 nicholas.weilhammer@myfloridalegal.com 12 SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 By: /s/ Harrison J. Frahn IV Harrison J. Frahn IV Harrison J. Frahn IV (SBN 206822) hfrahn@stblaw.com SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 2550 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 251-5000 Facsimile: (650) 251-5002 Attorneys for Defendants Chimei Innolux Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., and CMO Japan Co., Ltd. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 3:10- CV-3517-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI 1 MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2 By: : /s/ Kent M. Roger /s/ Kent M. Roger 3 4 5 6 7 8 Kent M. Roger (SBN 95987) One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-1001 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 Attorney for Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., and Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 3:10- CV-3517-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI 1 Pursuant to General Order 45, Part X-B, the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this 2 document has been obtained from all parties whose signatures are indicated by a “confirmed” 3 signature (/s/) within this e-filed document. 4 5 6 Dated: November 9, 2011 /s/ Harrison J. Frahn IV Harrison J. Frahn IV (SBN 206822) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 3:10- CV-3517-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI 1 2 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER Having considered the foregoing stipulation, and for good cause appearing, IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 6 11/15 Dated: _________________, 2011 By HON. SUSAN ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 3:10- CV-3517-SI; MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
