Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-208/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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 07-5944 SC 

RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE SHARP COMPLAINT MDL NO. 1917 

(Stipulating Parties Listed on Signature Pages) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to: 

Sharp Elecs. Corp. v. Hitachi Ltd. 

Case No. 3:13-cv-1173-SC 

Sharp Elecs. Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips 

Elecs. N.V.

Case No. 3:13-cv-2776-SC 

Master Case No. 3:07-cv-5944-SC 

MDL No. 1917 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS THE SHARP 

COMPLAINT 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2308 Filed 01/08/14 Page 1 of 8
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 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 07-5944 SC 

RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE SHARP COMPLAINT MDL NO. 1917 

US_ACTIVE:\44367326\9\62130.0354

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, the undersigned Defendants and 

Plaintiffs Sharp Electronics Corporation and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of 

America, Inc. (collectively, “Sharp” or the “Stipulating Plaintiffs”) have conferred by and through 

their counsel and, subject to the Court’s approval, HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: 

WHEREAS, there is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of California a multidistrict consolidated proceeding comprised of actions brought on 

behalf of purported purchasers of cathode ray tubes (“CRT”) and CRT finished products, captioned 

as In re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:07-cv-05944 SC (MDL No. 

1917) (the “MDL Proceedings”); 

WHEREAS, on March 15, 2013, Sharp filed a Summons and Complaint in the 

Northern District of California, Sharp Electronics Corp., et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et. al., Case No. 13-

cv-1173 (the “Sharp Action”); 

WHEREAS, on March 26, 2013, this Court entered an Order finding that Sharp 

Electronics Corp., et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al. is related to the MDL Proceedings (MDL Dkt. No. 

1608); 

WHEREAS, on April 23, 2013, Sharp filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order 

Regarding the Complaint in the Sharp Action (MDL Dkt. 1649) requesting the Court to enter an 

order authorizing the Defendants and Sharp, once the Court has ruled on the Defendants’ motions to 

dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings with respect to certain Direct Action Plaintiff complaints 

(MDL Dkt. Nos. 1316, 1317, 1319), to set a reasonable deadline for Defendants’ answers and/or a 

reasonable briefing schedule for Defendants’ motions to dismiss Sharp’s Complaint; 

WHEREAS, on April 24, 2013, the Court entered an Order pursuant to the 

Stipulation Regarding the Complaint in the Sharp Action (MDL Dkt. No. 1652); 

WHEREAS, on May 17, 2013, Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. (“Thomson”) 

filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Sharp’s claims in the Sharp Action (MDL Dkt. No. 

1677); 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2308 Filed 01/08/14 Page 2 of 8
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 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 07-5944 SC 

RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE SHARP COMPLAINT MDL NO. 1917 

WHEREAS, on September 26, 2013, the Court entered an Order granting 

Thomson’s Motion to Dismiss and granting Sharp thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to file 

an amended complaint (MDL Dkt. 1960); 

WHEREAS, on October 1, 2013, undersigned Defendants filed a Stipulation and 

Proposed Order Setting Schedule for Defendants to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Dell 

Amended Complaint, Sharp Complaint, and Tech Data Amended Complaint (MDL Dkt. 1969), to 

set deadlines for Defendants’ answers and/or motions to dismiss Sharp’s Complaint; 

WHEREAS, on October 1, 2013, the Court entered an Order pursuant to the 

Stipulation and Proposed Order Setting Schedule for Defendants to Answer or Otherwise Respond 

to the Dell Amended Complaint, Sharp Complaint, and Tech Data Amended Complaint (MDL Dkt. 

1971); 

WHEREAS, on October 7, 2013, pursuant to the stipulated deadline, the Defendants 

filed a Joint Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss certain of Sharp’s state law claims (MDL Dkt. 

No. 1992) (“Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss”); 

WHEREAS, on October 7, 2013, pursuant to the stipulated deadline, Defendants 

Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America, Inc.; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.; and 

Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Toshiba Defendants”) filed a Notice of 

Motion and Motion to Dismiss Sharp’s federal and state law claims (MDL Dkt. No. 2000) 

(“Toshiba Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss”); 

WHEREAS, on October 28, 2013, Sharp filed a First Amended Complaint and 

Demand for Jury Trial (Attachment 4, filed under seal, to MDL Dkt. No. 2030) (the “Sharp First 

Amended Complaint”); 

WHEREAS, on November 6, 2013, Sharp filed an Opposition to Defendants’ Joint 

Motion to Dismiss (MDL Dkt. 2194) and an Opposition to Toshiba Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

(MDL Dkt. 2195); 

WHEREAS, on November 20, 2013, Defendants filed a joint Reply in support of 

Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss (MDL Dkt. 2231) and Toshiba Defendants filed a Reply in 

support of Toshiba Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (MDL Dkt. 2229); 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2308 Filed 01/08/14 Page 3 of 8
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 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 07-5944 SC 

RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE SHARP COMPLAINT MDL NO. 1917 

WHEREAS, the Stipulating Plaintiffs and the Defendants seek to resolve the 

Defendants’ arguments in a manner that conserves the resources of the Court and avoids repetitive 

briefing on the same issues; 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between 

counsel for the Stipulating Plaintiffs and counsel for the undersigned Defendants in the abovecaptioned actions, as follows: 

1. The Stipulating Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that Defendants’ Joint Motion to 

Dismiss (MDL Dkt. No. 1992) and Toshiba Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (MDL 

Dkt. No. 2000) shall be deemed to apply to the Sharp First Amended Complaint; 

2. The undersigned Defendants do not need to otherwise respond to the Sharp First 

Amended Complaint; 

3. In the event that the Court grants either motion to dismiss with leave to amend, the 

undersigned Defendants will not argue that, because Sharp filed its First Amended 

Complaint, it should be prohibited from filing a Second Amended Complaint 

consistent with the Court’s order. Additionally, at oral argument on Defendants’ 

Joint Motion to Dismiss and Toshiba Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the 

undersigned Defendants will not argue that Sharp’s First Amended Complaint 

should be dismissed with prejudice for the reason that Sharp has already been 

given one opportunity to file an amended complaint and correct pleading 

deficiencies; Sharp agrees that this limitation does not prevent Defendants from 

arguing that Sharp’s First Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice 

for any other reason; and 

4. By virtue of this Stipulation, the undersigned Defendants and the Stipulating 

Plaintiffs do not waive any of their appeal rights to any issues addressed and 

resolved in this Stipulation. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2308 Filed 01/08/14 Page 4 of 8
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 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 07-5944 SC 

RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE SHARP COMPLAINT MDL NO. 1917 

Dated: December 2, 2013 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Adam C. Hemlock 

DAVID L. YOHAI (pro hac vice) 

E-mail: david.yohai@weil.com 

ADAM C. HEMLOCK (pro hac vice) 

E-mail: adam.hemlock@weil.com 

DAVID E. YOLKUT (pro hac vice) 

E-mail: david.yolkut@weil.com 

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, New York 10153-0119 

Telephone: (212) 310-8000 

Facsimile: (212) 310-8007 

JEFFREY L. KESSLER (pro hac vice) 

E-mail: jkessler@winston.com 

A. PAUL VICTOR (pro hac vice) 

E-mail: pvictor@winston.com 

ALDO A. BADINI (SBN 257086) 

E-mail: ABadini@winston.com 

EVA W. COLE (pro hac vice) 

E-mail: ewcole@winston.com 

MOLLY M. DONOVAN 

E-mail: mmdonovan@winston.com 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

200 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10166 

Telephone: (212) 294-6700 

Facsimile: (212) 294-4700 

Attorneys for Defendants Panasonic Corporation, 

Panasonic Corporation of North America, and MT 

Picture Display Co., Ltd. 

By: /s/ Lucius B. Lau 

CHRISTOPHER M. CURRAN (pro hac vice) 

E-mail: ccurran@whitecase.com 

LUCIUS B. LAU (pro hac vice) 

E-mail: alau@whitecase.com 

DANA E. FOSTER (pro hac vice) 

E-mail: defoster@whitecase.com 

WHITE & CASE LLP 

701 Thirteenth Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20005 

Telephone: (202) 626-3600 

Facsimile: (202) 639-9355 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2308 Filed 01/08/14 Page 5 of 8
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 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 07-5944 SC 

RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE SHARP COMPLAINT MDL NO. 1917 

Attorneys for Defendants Toshiba Corporation, 

Toshiba America, Inc., Toshiba America Information 

Systems, Inc., Toshiba America Consumer Products, 

L.L.C., and Toshiba America Electronic 

Components, Inc. 

By: /s/ Erik T. Koons 

JOHN M. TALADAY (pro hac vice) 

E-mail: john.taladay@bakerbotts.com 

JOSEPH OSTOYICH (pro hac vice) 

E-mail: joseph.ostoyich@ bakerbotts.com 

ERIK T. KOONS (pro hac vice) 

E-mail: erik.koons@bakerbotts.com 

CHARLES M. MALAISE (pro hac vice) 

E-mail: charles.malaise@bakerbotts.com 

BAKER BOTTS LLP 

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004-2400 

Telephone: (202) 639-7700 

Facsimile: (202) 639-7890 

Attorneys for Defendants Koninklijke Philips N.V. and 

Philips Electronics North America Corporation 

By: /s/ Hojoon Hwang 

HOJOON HWANG (SBN 184950) 

E-mail: Hojoon.Hwang@mto.com 

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 

560 Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 

Telephone: (415) 512-4000 

Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 

WILLIAM D. TEMKO (SBN 098858) 

E-mail: William.Temko@mto.com 

JONATHAN E. ALTMAN (SBN 170607) 

E-mail: Jonathan.Altman@mto.com 

BETHANY W. KRISTOVICH (SBN 241891) 

E-mail: Bethany.Kristovich@mto.com 

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 

355 South Grand Avenue, Thirty-Fifth Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 

Telephone: (213) 683-9100 

Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 

Attorneys for Defendants LG Electronics, Inc.; LG, 

LG Electronics USA, Inc.; and LG Electronics 

Taiwan Taipei Co., Ltd.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2308 Filed 01/08/14 Page 6 of 8
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 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 07-5944 SC 

RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE SHARP COMPLAINT MDL NO. 1917 

By: /s/ Eliot A. Adelson 

ELIOT A. ADELSON (SBN 205284) 

E-mail: eadelson@kirkland.com 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

555 California Street 

27th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 439-1413 

Facsimile: (415) 439-1500 

Attorneys for Defendants Hitachi, Ltd.; Hitachi 

Displays, Ltd. (n/k/a Japan Display Inc.); Hitachi 

America, Ltd.; Hitachi Asia, Ltd.; and Hitachi 

Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. 

By: /s/ James McGinnis 

GARY L. HALLING (SBN 66087) 

E-mail: ghalling@sheppardmullin.com 

JAMES L. MCGINNIS (SBN 95788) 

E-mail: jmcginnis@sheppardmullin.com 

MICHAEL W. SCARBOROUGH, (SBN 203524) 

E-mail: mscarborough@sheppardmullin.com 

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON 

Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 434-9100 

Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 

Attorneys for Defendants Samsung SDI America, 

Inc.; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI 

(Malaysia) SDN. BHD.; Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. 

DE C.V.; Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda.; Shenzen 

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. and Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., 

Ltd. 

By: /s/ Craig A. Benson 

KENNETH A. GALLO (pro hac vice) 

E-mail: kgallo@paulweiss.com 

JOSEPH J. SIMONS (pro hac vice) 

E-mail: jsimons@paulweiss.com 

CRAIG A. BENSON (pro hac vice) 

E-mail: cbenson@paulweiss.com 

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & 

GARRISON LLP 

2001 K Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

Telephone: (202) 223-7356 

Facsimile: (202) 204-7356 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2308 Filed 01/08/14 Page 7 of 8
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

 7 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 07-5944 SC 

RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE SHARP COMPLAINT MDL NO. 1917 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sharp Electronics 

Corporation and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing 

Company of America, Inc. 

 

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this 

document has been obtained from each of the above signatories. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

Hon. Samuel Conti 

United States District Judge 

January 8, 2014

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2308 Filed 01/08/14 Page 8 of 8