From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Interbond Corp. of America v. AU Optronics Corp. (In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litig.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Oct 4, 2011
Case No. 3:11-cv-03763-SI (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 3:11-cv-03763-SI Master File No. 3:07-md-1827-SI MDL No. 1827

10-04-2011

In re: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Document Relates to Individual Case No. 3:11-cv-03763-SI INTERBOND CORPORATION OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

Paul P. Eyre Ernest E. Vargo Michael E. Mumford BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP PNC Center Tracy Cole BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Attorneys for Defendant Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan), Ltd.


Paul P. Eyre

Ernest E. Vargo

Michael E. Mumford

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

PNC Center

Tracy Cole

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

Attorneys for Defendant Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan), Ltd.

STIPULATION OF EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT MITSUI & CO. (TAIWAN), LTD. TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Clerk's Action Required

WHEREAS, plaintiff Interbond Corporation of America d/b/a BrandsMart USA ("BrandsMart") filed a Complaint in the above-captioned action against defendant Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan), Ltd. ("Mitsui Taiwan"), among other defendants, on June 3, 2011.

Whereas, Plaintiffs and Mitsui Taiwan previously entered into a stipulation giving Mitsui Taiwan until October 6, 2011 to move to dismiss, answer, or otherwise respond to the Complaint. (See Dkt. #12; MDL Dkt. #3366.)

WHEREAS, BrandsMart and Mitsui Taiwan have reached an agreement, pursuant to Civil Rule L.R. 6-1(a), pursuant to which Mitsui Taiwan shall have an additional extension until December 1, 2011 in which to move against, answer, or otherwise respond to the Complaint.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the undersigned counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, BrandsMart, on the one hand, and Mitsui Taiwan, on the other hand, that Mitsui Taiwan's deadline to move to dismiss, answer, or otherwise respond to the Complaint will be December 1, 2011.

Paul P. Eyre

Ernest E. Vargo

Michael E. Mumford

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

PNC Center

Counsel for Defendant Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan), Ltd.

Philip J. Iovieno

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

Counsel for Plaintiff Interbond Corporation of America

Attestation: The filer of this document attests that the concurrence of the other signatories thereto has been obtained.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Hon. SUSAN ILLSTON


Summaries of

Interbond Corp. of America v. AU Optronics Corp. (In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litig.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Oct 4, 2011
Case No. 3:11-cv-03763-SI (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2011)
Case details for

Interbond Corp. of America v. AU Optronics Corp. (In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litig.)

Case Details

Full title:In re: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Document Relates to…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: Oct 4, 2011

Citations

Case No. 3:11-cv-03763-SI (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2011)