Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06668/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06668-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDING CASE NO. C-06 6668 MJJ

DANIEL E. ALBERTI (State Bar No. 68620)

dalberti@mwe.com

McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

3150 Porter Drive

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212

Telephone: (650) 813-5000

Facsimile: (650) 813-5100

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

2280 Union Street

San Francisco, CA 94123

Telephone: (415) 563-7200

Facsimile: (415) 346-0679

Attorneys for Plaintiff

KAROL JUSKIEWICZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

KAROL JUSKIEWICZ, on behalf of himself

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.;

SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.;

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; HYNIX

SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.;

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.; MICRON

SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC.;

CRUCIAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.;

WINBOND ELECTRONICS

CORPORATION; WINBOND

ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

AMERICA, INC.; NEC ELECTRONICS

AMERICA, INC.; CYPRESS

SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; ALLIANCE

SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION;

FUJITSU LTD.; FUJITSU AMERICAN,

INC.; GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC.; HITACHI,

LTD.; INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

MACHINES CORPORATION; IBM

MICROELECTRONICS, LTD.;

CASE NO. C-06 6668 (MJJ)

STIPULATION TO STAY

PROCEEDING PENDING DECISION

BY JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTI

DISTRICT LITIGATION; [PROPOSED]

ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-06668-MJJ Document 15 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 1 of 6
 Case 4:06-cv-06668-CW Document 20 Filed 01/23/07 Page 1 of 6
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDING - 2 - CASE NO. C-06 6668 MJJ

INTEGRATED DEVICE TECHNOLOGY,

INC.; INTEGRATED SILICON SOLUTION,

INC.; MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORP.;

MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC AND

ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.; RENESAS

TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION;

RENESAS TECHNOLOGY AMERICA,

INC.; SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION;

EPSON AMERICA, INC.; EPSON

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; SHARP

CORPORATION; SHARP ELECTRONICS

CORPORATION; SONY CORPORATION;

SONY CORPORATION; SONY

CORPORATION OF AMERICA; SONY

ELECTRONICS, INC.;

STMICROELECTRONICS N.V.;

STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.; TOSHIBA

CORPORATION; TOSHIBA AMERICA

CORPORATION; TOSHIBA AMERICA

ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC.;

ETRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.; and ETRON

TECHNOLOGY AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants.

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.

Case 3:06-cv-06668-MJJ Document 15 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 2 of 6
 Case 4:06-cv-06668-CW Document 20 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 6
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDING - 3 - CASE NO. C-06 6668 MJJ

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.”).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-06668-MJJ Document 15 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 3 of 6
 Case 4:06-cv-06668-CW Document 20 Filed 01/23/07 Page 3 of 6
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDING - 4 - CASE NO. C-06 6668 MJJ

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.

Dated: January 16, 2007 McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

By: /s/ Daniel E. Alberti

Daniel E. Alberti

Attorneys for Defendants

RENESAS TECHNOLOGY AMERICA,

INC. and HITACHI AMERICA, LTD.

Dated: January 16, 2007 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

By: /s/ Adam Wilson

Adam Wilson

Attorneys for Defendants

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and

MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR

PRODUCTS, INC.

Dated: January 16, 2007 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

By: /s/ Mario N. Alioto

Mario N. Alioto

Attorneys for Plaintiff

KAROL JUSKIEWICZ

Case 3:06-cv-06668-MJJ Document 15 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 4 of 6
 Case 4:06-cv-06668-CW Document 20 Filed 01/23/07 Page 4 of 6
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDING - 5 - CASE NO. C-06 6668 MJJ

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________________ ____________________________________

The Honorable Martin J. Jenkins

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06668-MJJ Document 15 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 5 of 6

1/23/2007

Case 4:06-cv-06668-CW Document 20 Filed 01/23/07 Page 5 of 6
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PALO ALTO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDING - 6 - CASE NO. C-06 6668 MJJ

DECLARATION RE: SIGNATURE PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45 § X

I, 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.

/s/ Daniel E. Alberti

MPK 120601-1.017575.0722

Case 3:06-cv-06668-MJJ Document 15 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 6 of 6
 Case 4:06-cv-06668-CW Document 20 Filed 01/23/07 Page 6 of 6