Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01984/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01984-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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 

 -1- 

STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO 

 ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

RENATA B. HESSE, State Bar No. 148425 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

1700 K Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 10006-3817 

Telephone: (202) 973-8800 

Facsimile: (202) 973-8899 

Email: RHesse@wsgr.com

LISA A. DAVIS, State Bar No. 179854 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

Email: LDavis@wsgr.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

TRANSITIONS OPTICAL, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOHN DONOHOE, on behalf of himself and all 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TRANSITIONS OPTICAL, INC., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 1:10-cv-01984-RS 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME 

FOR DEFENDANT TO ANSWER, 

MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND 

TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

PURSUANT TO CIV. L.R. 6-1(a) 

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1(a), plaintiff John Donohoe (“Plaintiff”) and defendant 

Transitions Optical, Inc. (“TOI”), hereby stipulate: 

WHEREAS, on or about May 7, 2010, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action, which 

alleges violations of California antitrust and unfair competition law; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff styled the action as a proposed class action; 

Case 3:10-cv-01984-RS Document 14 Filed 05/26/10 Page 1 of 6
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 

 -2- 

STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO 

 ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

WHEREAS, as of the date of this stipulation, numerous other plaintiffs have filed 

complaints in other federal courts, including: First Image Optical v. Transitions Optical Inc., et 

al., 10-cv-01032-RAL-TGW (M.D. Fla.); B & B Eyes, Inc. v. Transitions Optical, Inc., et al., 10-

cv-00984-JDW-EAJ (M.D. Fla.); Railway Optical, Inc. v. Transitions Optical, Inc., et al., 10-cv01004-JDW-TGW (M.D. Fla.); Arthur L. Cartier Optics v. Transitions Optical, Inc., et al., 2:10-

cv-00694-MJP (W.D. Wa.); Nouveau Vision v. Transitions Optical Inc., et al., 10-cv-00547-JCC 

(W.D. Wa.); Pennachio & Fishman v. Transitions Optical Inc., et al., 10-cv-00730-BAT (W.D. 

Wa.); Point of View v. Transitions Optical Inc., et al., 10-cv-00761-JLR (W.D. Wa.); See-Mor 

Optical of Hewlett, Inc. v. Transitions Optical Inc., et al., 10-cv-21289-DLG (S.D. Fla.); Gary 

Steven Eyes, Inc. v. Transitions Optical, Inc., et al., 10-cv-21518 (S.D. Fla.); Sickbert Family Eye 

Care, LLC v. Transitions Optical Inc., et al., 10-cv-00881-F (N.D. Tex.); and Carmel Mountain 

Vision Care v. Transitions Optical, Inc. et al., 10-cv-00835-RJL (D.D.C.); 

WHEREAS, as of the date of this stipulation, other plaintiffs have filed complaints in state 

courts, which have subsequently been removed to federal courts, including: Gable v. Transitions 

Optical Inc., et al., 10-cv-00487-JVS-AN (C.D. Cal.); and Sabani v. Transitions Optical Inc., et 

al., 10-cv-00332 (E.D. Wis.); 

WHEREAS, each of these complaints alleges federal or state antitrust actions as against 

Defendant TOI and in many instances, Essilor International SA, Essilor of America, Inc. and 

Essilor Laboratories of America, Inc., and are styled as proposed class actions (collectively, the 

“Related Actions”); 

WHEREAS, currently pending before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict 

Litigation (“JPML”) are motions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for transfer and coordination 

or consolidation of all related civil actions, including this action and the Related Actions, for 

pretrial proceedings regarding alleged antitrust violations in the claimed market for the 

development, manufacture and sale of photochromic treatments for corrective ophthalmic lenses; 

WHEREAS, the Court in one of the Related Actions, B & B Eyes, Inc. v. Transitions 

Optical, Inc., et al., 10-cv-00984-JDW-EAJ (M.D. Fla.), has approved an extension of time for 

Case 3:10-cv-01984-RS Document 14 Filed 05/26/10 Page 2 of 6
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 

 -3- 

STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO 

 ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

defendants in that action to respond to the complaint and stayed other pretrial deadlines and 

discovery pending the disposition of the motions pending before the JPML; 

WHEREAS, in light of the proceedings before the JPML, the potential for additional 

complaints in this and other various jurisdictions, and the complex nature of Plaintiff’s allegations, 

Plaintiff and Defendant, by and through their undersigned counsel, stipulate to the following 

Order: 

(1) Defendant’s time to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Complaint is hereby 

extended until disposition of the JPML proceeding as provided below. 

 (a) If the JPML transfers this case and all related civil actions to a single 

district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, 

Defendant shall, as permitted by Federal Rule 12, answer, move or otherwise plead in response to 

the complaint in the above captioned action (the “Complaint”) within 45 days after either: (i) the 

plaintiffs in the consolidated or coordinated actions serve consolidated amended complaints, or (ii) 

the plaintiffs in the consolidated or coordinated actions serve notice that they will not file 

consolidated amended complaints. 

 (b) If the JPML denies the motions to transfer this case and all related civil 

actions to a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, Defendant shall, as 

permitted by Federal Rule 12, answer, move or otherwise plead in response to the Complaint 

within 45 days after service of the JPML ruling. 

In either event, if Defendant files any motions pursuant to Rule 12, Plaintiff shall respond 

to any such motions within 60 days. Defendant shall file its replies, if any, within 45 days of the 

date when Plaintiff’s response is due. 

(2) Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant shall serve discovery requests or seek a case 

scheduling conference or order in this matter until disposition of the JPML proceeding. If a 

plaintiff in any of the Related Actions serves a discovery request or seeks a case scheduling 

conference or order, or a court in any of the Related Actions orders an answer or responsive 

pleading or issues a discovery-related order prior to disposition of the JPML proceeding, 

Defendant shall move to set aside such requests or orders, and Plaintiff shall not oppose any such 

Case 3:10-cv-01984-RS Document 14 Filed 05/26/10 Page 3 of 6
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 

 -4- 

STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO 

 ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

motions. Notwithstanding the above, if Defendant files an answer or other responsive pleading in 

any of the Related Actions before the date required by this stipulation, or responds to any 

discovery, Defendant will concurrently file its answer or responsive pleading, or produce the same 

discovery, in this matter. Any discovery production will be subject to a protective order to be 

negotiated by the parties. 

(3) Plaintiff and Defendant further stipulate and agree that the entry into this 

stipulation by Defendant shall not constitute a waiver of any jurisdictional defenses, other than 

personal jurisdiction, that may be available under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

a waiver of any affirmative defenses under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or a 

waiver of any other statutory or common law defenses that may be available to Defendant in this 

and the other Related Actions. Defendant expressly reserves its rights to raise any such defenses 

in response to either the current Complaint or any amended complaint that may be filed relating to 

this action. 

(4) Defendant agrees that they have been served or have agreed to waive service with 

respect to this action. 

(5) All parties agree that they will preserve documents and other materials relevant to 

this action and the Related Actions, or otherwise discoverable in this action. 

In accord with Civil L.R. 6-1(a), this change will not alter the date of any event or any 

deadline already fixed by Court Order. Other than the Case Management Conference set for 

August 26, 2010, the parties are unaware of any other pending deadlines or events fixed by Court 

Order in this case. 

Dated: May 21, 2010 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

 A Professional Corporation 

 By: /s/ Lisa A. Davis 

 Lisa A. Davis 

 Attorneys for Transitions Optical, Inc. 

Case 3:10-cv-01984-RS Document 14 Filed 05/26/10 Page 4 of 6
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 

 -5- 

STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO 

 ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

Dated: May 21, 2010 GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP

 By: /s/ Susan G. Kupfer 

 Susan G. Kupfer 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class 

John Donohoe 

 

Case 3:10-cv-01984-RS Document 14 Filed 05/26/10 Page 5 of 6
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 

 -6- 

STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO 

 ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

PROPOSED ORDER

 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Defendant’s time to file its 

response to Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby extended in accordance with the Stipulation re 

Extension of Time for Defendant to Answer, Move or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint 

Pursuant to CIV. L.R. 6-1(a). 

Dated: ___________, 2010 

By: 

The Honorable Richard Seeborg 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:10-cv-01984-RS Document 14 Filed 05/26/10 Page 6 of 6