Opinion
Case No. 3:11-cv-02225-SI Master File No. 3:07-md-1827-SI MDL No. 1827
11-30-2011
In re: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION OFFICE DEPOT, INC., Plaintiff, v. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
Paul P. Eyre Ernest E. Vargo Michael E. Mumford Erin K. Murdock-Park BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP PNC Center Tracy L. Cole BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Attorneys for Defendant Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan), Ltd.
Paul P. Eyre
Ernest E. Vargo
Michael E. Mumford
Erin K. Murdock-Park
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
PNC Center
Tracy L. Cole
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Attorneys for Defendant Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan), Ltd.
This Document Relates to Individual Case No. 3:11-cv-02225-SI
STIPULATION OF EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT MITSUI & CO. (TAIWAN), LTD. TO RESPOND TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Clerk's Action Required
WHEREAS, plaintiff Office Depot, Inc. ("Office Depot") filed a First Amended Complaint in the above-captioned action against defendant Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan), Ltd. ("Mitsui Taiwan"), among other defendants, on September 19, 2011.
WHEREAS, Office Depot and Mitsui Taiwan previously entered into two stipulations, the first giving Mitsui Taiwan, among other defendants, thirty (30) days after the filing of a First Amended Complaint to move to dismiss, answer, or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint, (See Dkt. #35; MDL Dkt. #3455), and the second giving Mitsui Taiwan until December 1, 2011 to move to dismiss, answer, or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint. (See Dkt. #44; MDL Dkt. #3810.)
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2011, Mitsui Taiwan intends to move to dismiss the amended complaint in the related case of Electrograph Systems, Inc., et al. v. Epson Imaging Devices Corp., et al., Individual Docket No. 3:10-cv-00117-SI (N.D. Cal.), Master Docket No. 3:07-md-01827-SI (N.D. Cal.) on the grounds that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Mitsui Taiwan.
WHEREAS, Mitsui Taiwan also intends to raise lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense in the instant case.
WHEREAS, the Court's ruling on Mitsui Taiwan's motion to dismiss in Electrograph may be relevant to the issue of personal jurisdiction in the instant case.
WHEREAS, in the interests of efficiency and judicial economy, Office Depot and Mitsui Taiwan have reached an agreement, pursuant to Civil Rule L.R. 6-1(a), that Mitsui Taiwan shall have an additional extension of time until twenty-one (21) days after the Court rules on Mitsui Taiwan's motion to dismiss in Electrograph, in which to move against, answer, or otherwise respond to Office Depot's First Amended Complaint.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the undersigned counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, Office Depot, 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 First Amended Complaint will be twenty-one (21) days after the Court issues its order on Mitsui Taiwan's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in Electrograph.
Paul P. Eyre
Ernest E. Vargo
Michael E. Mumford
Erin K. Murdock-Park
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
PNC Center
Tracy L. Cole
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Counsel for Defendant Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan), Ltd.
Philip J. Iovieno
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Counsel for Plaintiff Office Depot, Inc.
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