From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. AU Optronics Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 7, 2011
Case No. 2010-CV-3517 SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 2010-CV-3517 SI Master File No. 3:07-md-1827 SI MDL No. 1827

11-07-2011

STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, Plaintiff, v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Defendants.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA By: Nicholas J. Weilhammer R. Scott Palmer Lizabeth A. Brady Nicholas J. Weilhammer ( pro hac vice ) Office of the Attorney General State of Florida PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP JOHN M. GRENFELL JACOB R. SORENSEN FUSAE NARA ANDREW D. LANPHERE John M. Grenfell Attorneys for Defendants SHARP CORPORATION and SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION


PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP

JOHN M. GRENFELL (CA Bar No. 88500)

JACOB R. SORENSEN (CA Bar No. 209134)

FUSAE NARA (pro hac vice)

ANDREW D. LANPHERE (CA Bar No. 191479)

Attorneys for Defendants

SHARP CORPORATION and

SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER EXTENDING SHARP'S TIME

TO ANSWER AMENDED

COMPLAINT

WHEREAS plaintiff State of Florida filed an Amended Complaint in the above-captioned case against Defendants AU Optronics Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation America, Chi Mei Innolux Corp., CMO Japan Co., Ltd., Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., Hannstar Display Corporation, Hitachi Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd., LG Display America Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba Mobile Display Technology Co., Ltd., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. on April 13, 2011, Dkt. no. 2652;

WHEREAS Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics Corporation (together, "Sharp"), jointly with other defendants in this action, filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on May 20, 2011;

WHEREAS the Court denied defendants' joint motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on September 15, 2011;

WHEREAS Sharp desires a reasonable amount of time to answer the Amended Complaint;

WHEREAS the Court previously entered an Order extending the time to answer the Amended Complaint on October 7, 2011, as stipulated by Plaintiff and Sharp; and

WHEREAS the requested time modification will not affect any other deadline in this case.

THEREFORE, the State of Florida and Sharp hereby agree that Sharp's deadline to answer to the Amended Complaint shall be November 28, 2011.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF FLORIDA

By: Nicholas J. Weilhammer

R. Scott Palmer

Lizabeth A. Brady

Nicholas J. Weilhammer (pro hac vice)

Office of the Attorney General

State of Florida

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP

JOHN M. GRENFELL

JACOB R. SORENSEN

FUSAE NARA

ANDREW D. LANPHERE

John M. Grenfell

Attorneys for Defendants SHARP CORPORATION

and SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
ATTESTATION: Pursuant to General Order 45, Part X-B, the filer attests that the concurrence of the other signatory hereto has been obtained.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ____

Honorable Susan Illston


Summaries of

State v. AU Optronics Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 7, 2011
Case No. 2010-CV-3517 SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2011)
Case details for

State v. AU Optronics Corp.

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL…

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

Date published: Nov 7, 2011

Citations

Case No. 2010-CV-3517 SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2011)