Opinion
DANIEL E. ALBERTI (State Bar No. 68620), McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Attorneys for Defendant RENESAS.
TECHNOLOGY AMERICA, INC. and HITACHI AMERICA, LTD, MARIO N. ALIOTO (State Bar No. 56433), LAUREN C. RUSSELL (State Bar No. 241151), TRUMP, ALIOTO, TRUMP & PRESCOTT, LLP, San Francisco, CA, KAROL JUSKIEWICZ, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDING PENDING DECISION BY JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTI DISTRICT LITIGATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER
DANIEL E. ALBERTI, District Judge.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-2 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the following parties hereby stipulate to a stay of the proceeding for the following good cause:
1. At least 49 complaints have been filed to date in federal district courts by plaintiffs bringing class actions on behalf of either direct or indirect purchasers alleging price fixing by manufacturers of Static Random Access Memory ("SRAM") (collectively, the "SRAM cases").
2. There is currently pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") a request pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 to consolidate in this district the SRAM cases filed here and in other districts nationwide.
3. On December 14, 2006, the JPML issued a Notice of Hearing Session stating that the request to consolidate the SRAM cases will be heard by the JPML on January 25, 2007 (MDL 1819).
4. The parties agree that, at some point subsequent to that hearing, the JPML is likely to grant the transfer and coordination or consolidation request.
5. In light of the pending request before the JPML, Plaintiffs and Defendants stipulated on November 16, 2006 to extend the time for Defendants to respond to the Complaint in the above-captioned action to the earlier of the following two dates: (1) thirty days after the filing of a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the SRAM cases; or (2) thirty days after Plaintiffs provide written notice that they do not intend to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint, provided that such notice may be given only at or after the initial case management conference in the MDL transferee court in this case.
6. Anticipating a decision by the JPML, two courts in this district have already denied a series of administrative motions to consider whether certain SRAM cases should be related. These courts denied all of these motions without prejudice to renewal following the resolution of the proceedings before the JPML. See Dataplex, Inc. v. Alliance Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 06-6491 CW (12/14/06 Order of Judge Wilken) (Document 13 in 06-6511 EDL); see also In re DRAM Litigation, No. M02-1486 PJH (11/15/06 Order of Judge Hamilton).
7. Given the January 25, 2007 hearing date for MDL 1819, the dates set forth in the Case Management Scheduling Order filed October 26, 2006, specifically deadlines imposed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, Local Rule 16, and ADR Local Rule 3.5, will come to pass before the JPML acts on the pending request.
8. District courts possess the authority to issue stays pending JPML consideration of motions for transfer and consolidation. See, e.g., Conroy v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., 325 F.Supp.2d 1049, 1053 (N.D. Cal. 2004) ("The decision to grant or deny a temporary stay of proceedings pending a ruling on the transfer of [a] matter to the MDL court lies within this Court's discretion.") (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936)); see also Good v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 5 F.Supp.2d 804, 809 (N.D. Cal. 1998) ("Courts frequently grant stays pending a decision by the MDL Panel regarding whether to transfer a case.").
9. A stay pending the JPML's resolution of the MDL motion would promote judicial efficiency, allow consistency in pretrial rulings, and be most convenient to the parties, including the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
DECLARATION RE: SIGNATURE PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45 § XI,
Daniel E. Alberti, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney at the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, counsel of record for Defendants Renesas Technology America, Inc. and Hitachi America, Ltd. in the action entitled Karol Juskiewicz v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. C 06 6668 MJJ, pending before this Court. I am a member of good standing of the State Bar of California and am admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to such facts under oath.
2. I attest that the conformed signature of Adam Wilson, counsel of record for Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. and Mario N. Alioto, counsel of record for Karol Juskiewicz appearing in the signature block of the STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDING PENDING DECISION BY JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTI DISTRICT LITIGATION; [PROPOSED ORDER], is Messrs. Wilson and Alioto's signature, and that Messrs. Wilson and Alioto have authorized me to file the STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDING PENDING DECISION BY JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTI DISTRICT LITIGATION; [PENDING ORDER].
Executed on the 16th day of January, 2007 at Palo Alto, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.