Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06433/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06433-0/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 EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT

SAMTEL COLOR, LTD. TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING

TO INITIAL COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 3:07-CV-06433-SC

DANIEL E. ALBERTI (68620)

dalberti@mwe.com

McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

3150 Porter Drive

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212

Tel: (650) 813-5019

Fax: (650) 813-5100

Attorneys for Defendant

SAMTEL COLOR, LTD.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MONIKRAFT, INC., individually and on

behalf of a class of all those similarly situated

Plaintiff,

v.

CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES, LTD.,

CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES

(MALAYSIA) SDN.BHD, HITACHI, LTD.,

HITACHI AMERICA, LTD., HITACHI

ASIA, LTD., IRICO GROUP CORP., IRICO

DISPLAY DEVICES CO., LTD., LG

ELECTRONICS, INC., MATSUHITA

ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.,

PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH

AMERICA, ORION ELECTRIC CO. LTD.,

ORION AMERICA, INC., KONINKLIJKE

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V., PHILIPS

ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA,

SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD., SAMSUNG SDI

AMERICA, INC., SAMTEL COLOR, LTD.,

THAI CRT COMPANY, LTD., TOSHIBA

CORPORATION, BEIJING-MATSUSHITA

COLOR CRT COMPANY, LTD., LP

DISPLAYS INTERNATIONAL, LTD.

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:07-cv-06433-SC

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME

FOR DEFENDANT SAMTEL COLOR,

LTD. TO FILE RESPONSIVE

PLEADING TO INITIAL COMPLAINT

Case 3:07-cv-06433-JST Document 30 Filed 01/17/08 Page 1 of 4
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 EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT

SAMTEL COLOR, LTD. TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING

TO INITIAL COMPLAINT

- 2 - CASE NO. 3:07-CV-06433-SC

WHEREAS Plaintiff Monikraft, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in the above-captioned

case on or about December 21, 2007.

WHEREAS Plaintiff alleges antitrust violations by manufacturers, distributors, and sellers

of Cathode-Ray Tubes and products containing Cathode-Ray Tubes (collectively, “CRT

products”);

WHEREAS more than ten complaints have been filed to date in federal district courts

throughout the United States by plaintiffs purporting to bring class actions on behalf of direct and

indirect purchasers alleging antitrust violations by manufacturers and sellers of CRT products

(collectively, “the CRT Cases”);

WHEREAS a motion is pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to

transfer the CRT cases to this jurisdiction for coordinated and consolidated pre-trial proceedings

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. A response to the motion has been filed, and the parties anticipate

that additional responses will be filed by plaintiffs and various defendants;

WHEREAS the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation hearing has been scheduled for

January 30, 2008.

WHEREAS Plaintiff anticipates the possibility of Consolidated Amended Complaints in

the CRT Cases;

WHEREAS Plaintiff and Defendant Samtel Color, Ltd. (“Samtel”) have agreed that an

orderly schedule for any response to the pleadings in the CRT Cases would be more efficient for

the parties and for the Court;

WHEREAS Plaintiff agrees that deadline for Samtel to answer, move, or otherwise

respond to the Complaint shall be extended until the earliest of the following dates: (1) forty-five

days after the filing of a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the CRT Cases; or (2) forty-five

days after Plaintiff provides written notice to Samtel that Plaintiff does not intend to file a

Consolidated Amended Complaint, provided however, that in the event that Samtel should agree

to an earlier response date in any CRT case, Samtel will respond to the Complaint in the abovecaptioned action on that earlier date.

Case 3:07-cv-06433-JST Document 30 Filed 01/17/08 Page 2 of 4
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 EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT

SAMTEL COLOR, LTD. TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING

TO INITIAL COMPLAINT

- 3 - CASE NO. 3:07-CV-06433-SC

WHEREAS this Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by Samtel of any defense,

including but not limited to the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficiency of process or improper service of process;

THEREFORE, PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT SAMTEL, PURSUANT TO LOCAL

RULE 6-1(a), BY AND THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD,

HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:

1. The deadline for Samtel to answer, move or otherwise respond to the complaint

shall be extended until the earliest of the following dates: (1) forty-five days after the filing of a

Consolidated Amended Complaint in the CRT Cases; or (2) forty-five days after Plaintiff

provides written notice to Samtel that Plaintiff does not intend to file a Consolidated Amended

Complaint, provided however, that in the event that Samtel should agree to an earlier response

date in any CRT case, Samtel will respond to the Complaint in the above-captioned action on that

earlier date.

2. This Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by Samtel of any defenses, including

but not limited to the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction,

improper venue, sufficiency of process or service of process.

IT IS SO STIPULATED

Dated: January 16, 2008 COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL,

P.L.L.C.

By: /s/ Michael P. Lehmann

Michael P. Lehmann

Attorneys for Plaintiff

MONIKRAFT, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 3:07-cv-06433-JST Document 30 Filed 01/17/08 Page 3 of 4
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 EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT

SAMTEL COLOR, LTD. TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING

TO INITIAL COMPLAINT

- 4 - CASE NO. 3:07-CV-06433-SC

Dated: January 16, 2008 McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

By: /s/ Daniel E. Alberti

Daniel E. Alberti

Attorneys for Defendant

SAMTEL COLOR, LTD.

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 Defendant Samtel Color, Ltd., in the above-captioned action. 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 electronic signature of Michael P. Lehmann, counsel of record for

Plaintiff, Monikraft, Inc., appearing in the signature block of the STIPULATION TO EXTEND

TIME FOR DEFENDANT SAMTEL COLOR, LTD. TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING

TO INITIAL COMPLAINT, is the signature of Michael P. Lehmann, and that I have been

authorized to file the STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT SAMTEL

COLOR, LTD. TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO INITIAL COMPLAINT, on his

behalf.

Executed on the 16th day of January, 2008 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 137452-1.009900.0011

Case 3:07-cv-06433-JST Document 30 Filed 01/17/08 Page 4 of 4