Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07712/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07712-0/pdf.json

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

---

COOLEY GODWARD 

KRONISH LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

1021347 v1/SF STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME

TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

C-06-7712 MJJ 

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP 

STEPHEN C. NEAL (170085) (sneal@cooley.com) 

JAMES DONATO (146140) (jdonato@cooley.com) 

101 California Street, 5th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5800 

Telephone: (415) 693-2000 

Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 

Attorneys for Defendant 

NVIDIA CORPORATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRETT M. JOHNSON, on behalf of 

himself and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NVIDIA CORPORATION; ATI 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and 

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., 

Defendants. 

Case No. C-06-7712 MJJ 

CLASS ACTION

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO 

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Plaintiff Brett M. Johnson and Defendants Nvidia Corporation (“Nvidia”), ATI 

Technologies, Inc. and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (collectively “AMD”) stipulate and agree 

as follows to extend the time to respond to the Complaint on file in this action. 

1. On December 15, 2006, Plaintiff filed the Complaint, which alleges claims under 

Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and under state antitrust and consumer protection 

laws. Plaintiff has styled the Complaint as a putative class action. 

2. As of the date of this Stipulation, at least 14 other complaints have been filed in 

this and other judicial districts. All of these complaints also allege federal and/or state law 

antitrust claims against Nvidia and AMD and are styled as putative class actions. 

Case 3:06-cv-07712-MJJ Document 4 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 1 of 3

AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-07712-WHA Document 8 Filed 01/05/07 Page 1 of 3
COOLEY GODWARD 

KRONISH LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

1021347 v1/SF 2. 

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME

TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

C-06-7712 MJJ 

3. On December 8, 2006, plaintiffs in some of these other actions collectively filed a 

motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) to transfer and consolidate 

in this judicial district all existing and subsequently filed antitrust actions related to the claims 

alleged in the Complaint. Nvidia and AMD will respond to the motion on the schedule to be set 

by the JPML. 

4. On December 14, 2006, pursuant to Local Rule 3-12, the plaintiff in another action 

(Juskiewicz v. Nvidia Corp., et al., Case No. C-06-7553) filed an “Administrative Motion To 

Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related” to relate that action to a similar action (Truong v. 

Nvidia Corp., et al., Case No. C-06-7417) filed in this district against Nvidia and AMD. 

5. In light of the multiplicity of complaints on file and the pending motion before the 

JPML, the parties agree to extend the time for Nvidia and AMD to answer or otherwise respond 

to the Complaint to 30 days after (1) the order resolving the JPML motion, and (2) the filing and 

service of any subsequent consolidated complaint, without prejudice to the right of Nvidia or 

AMD to seek additional time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint for good cause 

shown. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: December 29, 2006 

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP 

By: /s/ James Donato 

 James Donato (146140) 

Attorneys for Defendant 

NVIDIA CORPORATION 

Dated: December 29, 2006 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

By: /s/ Charles H. Samel 

 Charles H. Samel (182019) 

Attorneys for Defendants 

ATI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and 

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 

Dated: December 29, 2006 

SCOTT & SCOTT LLP 

By: /s/ Arthur L. Shingler III 

 Arthur L. Shingler III (181719) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

BRETT M. JOHNSON 

Case 3:06-cv-07712-MJJ Document 4 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 2 of 3
 Case 3:06-cv-07712-WHA Document 8 Filed 01/05/07 Page 2 of 3
COOLEY GODWARD 

KRONISH LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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 

1021347 v1/SF 3. 

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME

TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

C-06-7712 MJJ 

FILER’S ATTESTATION: 

 Pursuant to General Order No. 45, § X(B) regarding signatures, I attest under penalty of 

perjury that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from its signatories. 

Dated: December 29, 2006 

 By: /s/ James Donato 

 James Donato 

Case 3:06-cv-07712-MJJ Document 4 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 3 of 3

1/5/2007

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Martin J. Jenkins

Case 3:06-cv-07712-WHA Document 8 Filed 01/05/07 Page 3 of 3