Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486-107/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 The first amended complaint was filed pursuant to the court’s June 1, 2007 order

granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings with

respect to numerous claims asserted in plaintiffs’ original complaint.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS

MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION No. M 02-1486 PJH

_______________________________/

ORDER EXTENDING TIME

This Document Relates to: TO RESPOND TO AMENDED

COMPLAINT

All Indirect Purchaser Actions

_______________________________/

On July 2, 2007, the parties filed a stipulation whereby the parties agreed to extend

the time for defendants to respond to the first amended complaint filed on June 28, 2007 by

the indirect purchaser plaintiffs.1

 According to the stipulation, defendants are considering

whether to file a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, and it

therefore grants defendants until July 30, 2007 to respond to the first amended complaint. 

The same day this stipulation was filed, however, plaintiffs also re-noticed for

hearing a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which is now set to be

heard on August 15, 2007. Plaintiffs’ proposed second amended complaint differs from the

first amended complaint, in that it seeks to redefine the putative indirect purchaser class in

certain respects, and to overcome several of the deficiencies that led the court to grant

judgment on the pleadings in defendants’ favor with respect to numerous claims asserted in

the original complaint. 

In view of plaintiffs’ pending motion for leave to file a second amended complaint,

the court believes that it would be inefficient for defendants to file an answer or response to

the first amended complaint, without first learning whether a second amended complaint

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1614 Filed 07/06/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

will be allowed. If the court chooses to allow the filing of a second amended complaint, for

example, and assuming that defendants answer or respond to the first amended complaint

by July 30, 2007, defendants would be required to answer or respond to a superceding

second amended complaint just weeks after responding to the first amended complaint, or

even while a motion to dismiss is pending as to the first amended complaint. Not only

would such a result be inefficient, it would also create the risk of duplicative and

unnecessary motion practice, in the event that defendants decided to file a motion to

dismiss in response to both the first amended complaint, and any second amended

complaint. 

In sum, the court finds that judicial efficiency would be best served by granting

defendants additional time so that they may answer or respond to either plaintiffs’ first

amended complaint, or plaintiffs’ second amended complaint (in the event the court allows

the filing of such) – whichever of the two is ultimately deemed to be the operative

complaint. 

To that end, defendants need not respond to any amended complaint filed by

plaintiffs until after the court has issued its decision regarding plaintiffs’ motion for leave to

file a second amended complaint. In the event the court denies plaintiffs’ motion,

defendants shall have 30 days from the date of such denial in which to answer or respond

to the first amended complaint currently on file. In the event the court grants plaintiffs’

motion, defendants shall have 30 days from the date of the filing of the second amended

complaint in which to answer or respond to the second amended complaint. 

This order supercedes the July 2, 2007 stipulation filed by the parties. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1614 Filed 07/06/07 Page 2 of 2