Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06410/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06410-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

-1- 

W02-WEST:FMI\400113193.5 

Case No. C06-06410 RMW 

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER

 REMANDING CIVIL ACTION

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 

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 

 A Limited Liability Partnership 

 Including Professional Corporations 

GARY L. HALLING, Cal. Bar No. 66087

MICHAEL W. SCARBOROUGH, Cal. Bar No. 203524 

Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111-4106 

Telephone: 415-434-9100 

Facsimile: 415-434-3947 

Email: ghalling@sheppardmullin.com

Email: mscarborough@sheppardmullin.com

Attorneys for Defendants 

SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. and 

SAMSUNG INFORMATION SYSTEMS AMERICA, INC. 

WEISS & LURIE 

JORDAN L. LURIE, Cal. Bar No. 130013

ZEV B. ZYSMAN, Cal. Bar No. 176805 

10940 Wilshire Blvd., 23rd Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90024 

Telephone: 310-208-2800 

Facsimile: 310-209-2348 

Email: jlurie@weisslurie.com

Email: zzysman@weisslurie.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

TCHIE TAO and the proposed class 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

TCHIE TAO, on Behalf of Himself, and 

All Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. 

SAMSUNG INFORMATION SYSTEMS 

AMERICA, INC., and DOES 1-100, 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. C-06-06410 RMW (PVT) 

Removed Case: Santa Clara Superior Court 

No. 106CV070765 

Removed: October 13, 2006 

STIPULATION AND []

ORDER REMANDING CIVIL 

ACTION 

Courtroom: 6, 4th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte 

Case 5:06-cv-06410-RMW Document 12 Filed 12/07/06 Page 1 of 5
 -2- 

W02-WEST:FMI\400113193.5 

Case No. C06-06410 RMW 

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER

 REMANDING CIVIL ACTION

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 

WHEREAS, on September 8, 2006, plaintiff Tchie Tao ("Plaintiff") filed a 

Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") against defendants Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. 

("SSI") and Samsung Information Systems America, Inc. ("SISA") (collectively, 

"Defendants") in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1-06-CV-070765; 

WHEREAS, on October 13, 2006, Defendants removed this action to the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California pursuant to The Class 

Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1332, on the grounds that it is a civil 

class action of 100 or more putative class members wherein the amount in controversy 

exceeds the sum of $5,000,000 and one or more putative class members are citizens of 

different states than Defendants; 

WHEREAS, the Declaration of Albert Kim accompanying Defendants' 

Notice of Removal stated, among other things, that: 

• SSI markets and sells hard disk drives ("HDDs") that ultimately are 

purchased by consumers throughout the United States; 

• SSI sells a substantial percentage of its HDDs to two very large 

accounts, Dell and Hewlett-Packard, that in turn sell SSI's HDDs to consumers throughout 

the United States and the world; 

• SSI also sells HDDs to a variety of distributors that resell HDDs 

throughout the United States, including to large national electronics retailers such as 

CompUSA; 

• SSI does not sell HDDs directly to consumers in the United States; 

• SISA does not currently market or sell HDDs; and 

• SSI shipped and sold more than $100,000,000 worth of HDDs to its 

customers in the United States in the year 2005.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff contends that the Complaint concerns only 

"aftermarket" (i.e., non-original equipment manufacturer) HDDs packaged and sold to 

consumers as Samsung-branded products, and that the Declaration of Mr. Kim is 

Case 5:06-cv-06410-RMW Document 12 Filed 12/07/06 Page 2 of 5
 -3- 

W02-WEST:FMI\400113193.5 

Case No. C06-06410 RMW 

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER

 REMANDING CIVIL ACTION

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 

overbroad and fails to set forth sufficient evidence to prove that the amount in controversy 

in this action exceeds the $5,000,000 jurisdictional threshold of CAFA; 

WHEREAS, Defendants contend that the CAFA amount in controversy 

requirement is satisfied, inter alia, by Mr. Kim's Declaration in light of Plaintiff's proposed 

class, defined, in pertinent part, as follows: 

All persons or entities in the United States who purchased a 

Samsung Hard Disk Drive (hereinafter "HDDs") on or between 

the date Defendants placed each of the HDDs into the stream 

of commerce through the date the Court certifies this suit as a 

class action, who resided in the United States at the time of 

purchase, purchased the HDD at a location within the United 

Sates, purchased the HDD new (i.e., not second hand) from an 

entity that regularly sells/sold such devices or items, and did 

not purchase the HDD for resale to others. 

Complaint, ¶ 17. 

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred regarding these issues, and, 

without waiving any defense thereto, agreed to Plaintiff's filing of a First Amended 

Complaint on December 4, 2006, dropping SISA as a Defendant and modifying the 

definition of the sales and products at issue, and the proposed class, in pertinent part, as 

follows: 

All persons or entities in the United States who purchased an 

aftermarket Samsung-branded and Samsung-packaged Hard 

Disk Drive (hereinafter "HDDs") on or between the date 

Defendant placed each of the HDDs into the stream of 

commerce through the date the Court certifies this suit as a 

class action, who resided in the United States at the time of 

purchase, purchased the HDD at a location within the United 

States, purchased the HDD new (i.e., not second hand) from an 

entity that regularly sells/sold such devices or items, and did 

not purchase the HDD for resale to others. 

WHEREAS, Defendants have represented that the HDD sales covered by the 

First Amended Complaint are below $2,000,000, and thus below the CAFA $5,000,000 

threshold; 

WHEREAS, the parties agree that, in light of the First Amended Complaint 

and the parties' representations, remand to the Santa Clara County Superior Court is 

appropriate; 

Case 5:06-cv-06410-RMW Document 12 Filed 12/07/06 Page 3 of 5
 -4- 

W02-WEST:FMI\400113193.5 

Case No. C06-06410 RMW 

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER

 REMANDING CIVIL ACTION

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 

NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows, and 

that the Court may enter an Order as follows: 

1. Defendant Samsung Information Systems America, Inc. is dismissed 

from this action without prejudice, with each party to bear his or its own fees and costs in 

connection with such dismissal. SISA agrees that its undersigned counsel, Sheppard, 

Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, is authorized to accept service of discovery from 

Plaintiff on SISA's behalf. 

2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 and the Court's discretionary authority, 

this action is remanded to the Santa Clara County Superior Court, with each party to bear 

his or its own fees and costs in connection with this Order, remand, and the removal of this 

action in the first instance. 

3. This Order is without prejudice to Defendants' rights to demur, move 

or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint in the Superior Court within 30 days 

of its filing in this Court. 

4. Plaintiff and his counsel agree not to seek a material expansion of the 

class definition set forth in the First Amended Complaint, including any modification of 

the class definition to include or address any sales by Defendants to, or consumer 

purchases from, original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs"), or entities selling 

Defendants' products using non-Samsung trade names and/or packaging. 

5. This Order is without prejudice to Defendants' rights to remove this 

action again should Plaintiff expand the scope of this action to place in controversy more 

than $5,000,000, or should some other basis for federal jurisdiction arise. 

6. This action having been remanded, all dates and hearings in this 

matter are hereby vacated, including Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a 

Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted or, in the Alternative, to Strike Portions of 

Plaintiff's Complaint, currently set for hearing on January 5, 2007. 

Case 5:06-cv-06410-RMW Document 12 Filed 12/07/06 Page 4 of 5
2

3

4

5

6

I DATED: December 4, 2006

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

By /s/

MICHAEL W. SCARBOROUGH

Attorneys for Defendants

SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. and

SAMSUNG INFORMATION SYSTEMS

AMERICA, INC.

7

S DATED. December 4, 2006

9

10

11

12

3

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

December , 2006

HON. RONALD M. WHYTE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

25

26

27

28

W02-WESTTMA4001 1 3 1 93.s STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No. C06-06410 RMW REMANDING CIVIL ACTION

WEISS & LURIE

By

ZEV B. ZYSMAN

Attorneys for Plaintiff

TCHIE TAO and the proposed class

14

5

Case 5:06-cv-06410-RMW Document 12 Filed 12/07/06 Page 5 of 5