Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07831/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07831-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 

500118141v1 - 1 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 

Case No. C-06-7831 SBA 

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

ALBERT J. BORO, JR. (CA Bar # 126657) 

albert.boro@pillsburylaw.com 

JOANNE H. KIM (CA Bar # 221525) 

joanne.kim@pillsburylaw.com 

50 Fremont Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 983-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 983-1200 

Attorneys for Defendant 

SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

James Burt, on behalf of himself and all 

others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

LG Phillips LCD Co., Ltd, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-06-7831 SBA 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO 

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

WHEREAS plaintiff filed a complaint in the above-captioned case on or about 

December 12, 2006; 

WHEREAS plaintiff alleges antitrust violations by manufacturers of Liquid Crystal 

Display (“LCD”) products; 

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

courts throughout the United States by plaintiffs purporting to bring class actions on behalf 

of indirect purchasers alleging antitrust violations by manufacturers of LCD products 

(collectively, “the LCD Cases”); 

Case 4:06-cv-07831-SBA Document 5 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 1 of 3

XXXXXXXX

Case 3:06-cv-07831-SI Document 11 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 3
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 

500118141v1 - 2 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 

Case No. C-06-7831 SBA 

WHEREAS there are motions pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict 

Litigation to transfer the LCD Cases to the Northern District of California or the District of 

New Jersey for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1407; 

WHEREAS plaintiff anticipates the possibility of Consolidated Amended 

Complaints in the LCD Cases; 

WHEREAS plaintiff and defendant Sharp Electronics Corporation (“SEC”) have 

agreed that an orderly schedule for any response to the pleadings in the LCD Cases would 

be more efficient for the parties and for the Court; 

WHEREAS plaintiff agrees that the deadline for SEC to respond to the Complaint 

shall be extended until the earlier of the following two dates: (1) forty-five days after the 

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

plaintiff provides written notice to SEC that he does not intend to file a Consolidated 

Amended Complaint, provided that such notice may be given only after the initial case 

management conference in the MDL transferee court in this case; 

WHEREAS plaintiff further agrees that this extension is available, without further 

stipulation with counsel for plaintiff, to all named defendants who notify plaintiff in writing 

of their intention to join this extension; 

WHEREAS this Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by SEC or any defendant 

of any defense, including but not limited to the defenses of lack of personal or subject 

matter jurisdiction, insufficiency of process, insufficiency of service of process, or improper 

venue. 

PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, BY 

AND THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD, HEREBY 

STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: 

1. The deadline for the SEC to respond to the Complaint shall be extended until 

the earlier of the following two dates: (1) forty-five days after the filing of a Consolidated 

Amended Complaint in the LCD Cases; or (2) forty-five days after the plaintiff provides 

Case 4:06-cv-07831-SBA Document 5 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 2 of 3
 Case 3:06-cv-07831-SI Document 11 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 3
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 

500118141v1 - 3 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 

Case No. C-06-7831 SBA 

written notice that he does not intend to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint, provided 

that such notice may be given only after the initial case management conference in the 

MDL transferee court in this case. 

2. This extension is available, without further stipulation with counsel for 

plaintiff or further order of the Court, to all named defendants who notify plaintiff in 

writing of their intention to join this extension. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: January 8, 2007 

 

Signature: /s/ Christopher L. Lebsock

Michael P. Lehmann 

Thomas P. Dove 

Christopher L. Lebsock 

Jon T. King 

Furth Lehmann & Grant LLP 

225 Bush Street, 15th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104-4249 

Francis O. Scarpulla 

Craig C. Corbitt 

Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette LLP 

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Counsel for Plaintiff James Burt 

Dated: January 8, 2007 

 

Signature: /s/ Albert J. Boro, Jr.

Albert J. Boro, Jr. 

Joanne H. Kim 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 

50 Fremont Street 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Counsel for Defendant Sharp Electronics 

Corporation 

 

SO ORDERED: 

Dated: 

 United States District Judge 

Case 4:06-cv-07831-SBA Document 5 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 3 of 3

1/10/07

Case 3:06-cv-07831-SI Document 11 Filed 01/11/07 Page 3 of 3