From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Aug 15, 2014
MDL Docket 3:10-md-02143-RS-JCS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2014)

Opinion

          CROWELL & MORING LLP Daniel A. Sasse, Angela J. Yu, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Ingram Micro Inc. and Synnex Corporation.

          ASIA LAW FOREIGN LEGAL AFFAIRS LAW FIRM Christopher M. Neumeyer, Attorneys for Defendants Quanta Storage, Inc. and Quanta Storage America, Inc.

          CROWELL & MORING LLP Daniel A. Sasse, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ingram Micro Inc. and Synnex Corporation.


          STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT

          RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.

         STIPULATION

         WHEREAS on June 16, 2014, Plaintiffs Ingram Micro Inc. ("Ingram Micro") and Synnex Corporation ("Synnex") filed an Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief [Doc. No. 30] (the "Amended Complaint") naming Quanta Storage, Inc. and Quanta Storage America, Inc. (collectively, "Quanta"), among others, as defendants; and

         WHEREAS on July 31, 2014, Defendant Quanta filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 35] (the "Motion to Dismiss"); and

         WHEREAS Plaintiffs Ingram Micro and Synnex and Defendant Quanta have conferred and reached agreement on the following proposed briefing schedule for the Motion to Dismiss: that the deadline for any opposition shall be September 29, 2014; and that the deadline for any reply shall be October 27, 2014,

         NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiff Ingram Micro, Plaintiff Synnex, and Defendant Quanta, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree, subject to Court approval, that the following briefing schedule shall apply to the Motion to Dismiss:

1. The deadline for any opposition shall be September 29, 2014.

2. The deadline for any reply shall be October 27, 2014.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED. 3. Motion to Dismiss Hearing shall be November 20, 2014 at 1:30 pm.

         FILER ATTESTATION

         Pursuant to Rule 5-1(i)(3) of the Local Rules of Practice in Civil Proceedings Before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, I, Daniel A. Sasse, hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories.

         [PROPOSED] ORDER

         PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

In re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Aug 15, 2014
MDL Docket 3:10-md-02143-RS-JCS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2014)
Case details for

In re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation

Case Details

Full title:IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION v. LG Electronics…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

Date published: Aug 15, 2014

Citations

MDL Docket 3:10-md-02143-RS-JCS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2014)