From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oregon ex rel. Kroger v. AU Optronics Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 1, 2011
Case No. 3:10-cv-4346 SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 3:10-cv-4346 SI Master File No. 3:07-md-1827 MDL No. 1827

11-01-2011

STATE OF OREGON, ex rel. John Kroger, Attorney General, Plaintiffs, v. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP KENT M. ROGER, State Bar No, 95987 HERMAN J. HOYING, State Bar No. 257495 JENNIFER L. CALVERT, State Bar No. 258018 Attorneys for Defendants HITACHI, LTD., HITACHI DISPLAYS, LTD., HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), INC.


MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

KENT M. ROGER, State Bar No, 95987

HERMAN J. HOYING, State Bar No. 257495

JENNIFER L. CALVERT, State Bar No. 258018

Attorneys for Defendants

HITACHI, LTD., HITACHI DISPLAYS, LTD.,

HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), INC.

This Document Relates to Individual

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

WHEREAS plaintiff State of Oregon ("Oregon") filed the above captioned lawsuit on August 10, 2010;

WHEREAS Oregon filed a first amended complaint on April 15, 2011 ("Amended Complaint");

WHEREAS Defendants Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. and Hitachi, Ltd. (collectively, the "Hitachi Defendants") and Defendants Chi Mei Corporation, Chi Mei Innolux Corporation, CMO Japan Co., Ltd., and Chi Mei Optoelectronic USA, Inc. (collectively, the "Chi Mei Defendants") jointly filed with other defendants a motion to dismiss Count III in its entirety and Count IV to the extent it seeks "disgorgement of profits" as a remedy on June 6, 2011;

WHEREAS the Court denied Defendants' joint motion to dismiss Counts III and IV of the Amended Complaint on July 12, 2011;

WHEREAS all defendants, including the Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants, entered into a stipulation with Oregon on July 21, 2011 that Defendants' deadline to answer the Amended Complaint was August 12, 2011;

WHEREAS on July 21, 2011, the Court entered an order extending Defendants' deadline to answer the Amended Complaint until August 12, 2011;

WHEREAS the Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants entered into a stipulation with Oregon on August 11, 2011 that the Hitachi Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' deadline to answer the Amended Complaint is September 12, 2011;

WHEREAS on August 24, 2011, the Court entered an order extending the Hitachi Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' deadline to answer the Amended Complaint until September 12, 2011;

WHEREAS the Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants entered into a stipulation with Oregon on September 9, 2011 that the Hitachi Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' deadline to answer the Amended Complaint is September 26, 2011;

WHEREAS on September 13, 2011, the Court entered an order extending the Hitachi Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' deadline to answer the Amended Complaint until September 26, 2011;

WHEREAS the Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants entered into a stipulation with Oregon on September 23, 2011 that the Hitachi Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' deadline to answer the Amended Complaint is November 4, 2011;

WHEREAS on September 28, 2011, the Court entered an order extending the Hitachi Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' deadline to answer the Amended Complaint until November 4, 2011;

WHEREAS extending the Hitachi Defendants' and Chi Mei Defendants' time to respond to the Amended Complaint will not alter the date of any other event or deadline already fixed by the Court;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the undersigned counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, Oregon, on the one hand, and the Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants on the other hand, as follows:

Hitachi Defendants and Chi Mei Defendants will have until December 9, 2011 to answer Oregon's Amended Complaint.

HAGLUND KELLEY HORNGREN JONES & WILDER LLP

Michael E. Haglund (SBN 772030)

Michael K. Kelley (SBN 853782)

Shay S. Scott (SBN 934214)

HAGLUND KELLEY HORNGREN JONES & WILDER LLP

Counsel for State of Oregon

OREGON SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

Tim D. Nord (SBN 882800)

Counsel for State of Oregon

MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Kent M. Roger (SBN 95987)

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Attorneys for Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays,

Ltd., and Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP

Harrison J. Frahn IV (SBN 206822)

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP

Attorneys for Defendants Chi Mei Corporation,

Chimei Innolux Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA,

Inc., and CMO Japan Co., Ltd.

FILER'S ATTESTATION

I, Kent M. Roger, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that Michael M. Kelley and Harrison J. Frahn IV concur in this filing.

Kent M. Roger

Attorneys for Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays,

Ltd., and Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation set forth above and pursuant to Rule 6-1(a) of the Civil Local Rules, IT IS SO ORDERED.

HON. SUSAN ILLSTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Oregon ex rel. Kroger v. AU Optronics Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 1, 2011
Case No. 3:10-cv-4346 SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2011)
Case details for

Oregon ex rel. Kroger v. AU Optronics Corp.

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, ex rel. John Kroger, Attorney General, Plaintiffs, v. AU…

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

Date published: Nov 1, 2011

Citations

Case No. 3:10-cv-4346 SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2011)