Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00914/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00914-0/pdf.json

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

---

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1690971.1 1 Stipulation Extending Time

To Respond To Complaint

C-07-00914 SC

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 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

 Charles H. Samel (SBN 182019) 

633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 

Los Angeles, California 90071-2007 

Telephone: (213) 485-1234 

Facsimile: (213) 891-8763 

Email: charles.samel@lw.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

ATI Technologies, Inc. and 

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SCOTT ERICKSON, 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-07-00914 SC 

CLASS ACTION

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO 

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Plaintiff Scott Erickson (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Nvidia Corporation 

(“Nvidia”), and 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 February 13, 2007, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action 

(“Complaint”), which alleges claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 

pendant state law claims. Plaintiff styled the Complaint as a putative class action. 

2. As of the date of this Stipulation, at least 34 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 3:07-cv-00914-WHA Document 7 Filed 03/07/07 Page 1 of 3
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1690971.1 2 Stipulation Extending Time

To Respond To Complaint C-07-00914 SC

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. On December 8, 2006, plaintiffs in a related action before the Judicial 

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML” or “Panel”) to transfer and consolidate in this judicial 

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

Complaint (“JPML Motion”). On January 16, 2007, AMD and Nvidia filed a response with the 

JPML proposing that the Panel consolidate these actions in the Northern District of California, 

San Jose Division, or, in the alternative, in the Northern District of California, San Francisco 

Division. Other parties have filed papers with the Panel supporting centralization in the Central 

District of California. The Panel has scheduled a hearing on the JPML Motion for March 29, 

2007. 

4. 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: March 6, 2007 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

By: /s/ Charles H. Samel 

 Charles H. Samel (182019) 

Attorneys for Defendants 

ATI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and 

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 

Dated: March 6, 2007 Dated: March 1, 2007 

COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP FURTH LEHMANN & GRANT LLP 

By: /s/ James Donato By: /s/ Christopher L. Lebsock 

 James Donato (146140) Christopher L. Lebsock 

Attorneys for Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiff 

NVIDIA CORPORATION SCOTT ERICKSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 3:07-cv-00914-WHA Document 7 Filed 03/07/07 Page 2 of 3
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

 LA\1690971.1 3 Stipulation Extending Time

To Respond To Complaint C-07-00914 SC

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 

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: March 6, 2007 

 By: /s/ Charles H. Samel 

Charles H. Samel 

 

Case 3:07-cv-00914-WHA Document 7 Filed 03/07/07 Page 3 of 3