From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schultze Agency Servs. LLC v. AU Optronics Corp. (In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 30, 2011
Case No. 3:11-cv-03856-SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 3:11-cv-03856-SI Master File No. 3:07-md-1827-SI MDL No. 1827

11-30-2011

In re: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Document Relates to Individual Case No. 3:11-cv-03856-SI SCHULTZE AGENCY SERVICES, LLC ON BEHALF OF TWEETER OPCO, LLC AND TWEETER NEWCO, LLC Plaintiff, v. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

Michael E. Mumford Paul P. Eyre Ernest E. Vargo Michael E. Mumford Erin K. Murdock-Park BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Tracy L. Cole BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Counsel for Defendants Mitsui & Co. ( Taiwan ) , Ltd. and Mitsui & Co. ( U.S.A ) , Inc. Philip J. Iovieno BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Counsel for Schultze Agency Services, LLC on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and Tweeter Newco, LLC


Paul P. Eyre

Ernest E. Vargo

Michael E. Mumford

Erin K. Murdock-Park

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

Tracy L. Cole

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

Attorneys for Defendants Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan),

Ltd. and Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc.

STIPULATION OF EXTENSION OF TIME

FOR DEFENDANTS MITSUI & CO.

(TAIWAN), LTD. AND MITSUI & CO.

(U.S.A.), INC. TO RESPOND TO THE

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Clerk's Action Required

WHEREAS, plaintiff Schultze Agency Services, LLC on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and Tweeter Newco, LLC ("Tweeter") filed a Complaint in the above-captioned action against defendants Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan), Ltd. ("Mitsui Taiwan") and Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc. ("Mitsui USA"), among other defendants, on July 1, 2011.

WHEREAS, Tweeter, Mitsui Taiwan and Mitsui USA, among other defendants previously entered into a stipulation giving Tweeter until December 6, 2011 to file a First Amended Complaint, and giving Mitsui Taiwan and Mitsui USA until January 10, 2012 to move to dismiss, answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint, (See Dkt. #22; MDL Dkt. #4087.)

WHEREAS, on December 1, 2011, Mitsui Taiwan intends to move to dismiss in 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 and Mitsui USA also intend 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, Tweeter, Mitsui Taiwan and Mitsui USA have reached an agreement, pursuant to Civil Rule L.R. 6-1(a), that Mitsui Taiwan and Mitsui USA shall have an 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 Tweeter's First Amended Complaint.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the undersigned counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, Tweeter on the one hand, and Mitsui Taiwan and Mitsui USA, on the other hand, that Mitsui Taiwan and Mitsui USA'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.

Michael E. Mumford

Paul P. Eyre

Ernest E. Vargo

Michael E. Mumford

Erin K. Murdock-Park

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

Tracy L. Cole

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

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

and Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A), Inc.

Philip J. Iovieno

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

Counsel for Schultze Agency Services, LLC

on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and Tweeter Newco, LLC

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

Schultze Agency Servs. LLC v. AU Optronics Corp. (In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 30, 2011
Case No. 3:11-cv-03856-SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011)
Case details for

Schultze Agency Servs. LLC v. AU Optronics Corp. (In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) 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: Nov 30, 2011

Citations

Case No. 3:11-cv-03856-SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011)