Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-250/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 MDL 1917

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PAGE LIMITS AND BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR THE PHILIPS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENT 

SERVICE OF PROCESS AND LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

(Stipulating Parties Listed on Signature Page)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS

Case No. 07-5944 SC

MDL No. 1917

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING PAGE LIMITS 

AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR THE 

PHILIPS TAIWAN LIMITED AND 

PHILIPS DO BRASIL LTDA. MOTION 

TO DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENT 

SERVICE OF PROCESS AND LACK OF 

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2551 Filed 04/29/14 Page 1 of 4
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 - MDL 1917

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PAGE LIMITS AND BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR THE PHILIPS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENT 

SERVICE OF PROCESS AND LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

WHEREAS, Defendants Philips Taiwan Limited and Philips do Brasil Ltda1 (collectively the 

“Philips Defendants”) have specially appeared and filed a motion to dismiss the claims of the 

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (“IPPs”) for insufficient service of process and lack of personal 

jurisdiction on March 26, 2014 (Dkt. No. 2470);2

WHEREAS, IPPs served an opposition to this motion on April 14, 2014 (Dkt. No. 2536);

WHEREAS, the IPPs’ opposition responds to two motions to dismiss: (1) the abovereferenced motion filed on March 16, 2014; and (2) the Philips Defendants’ original motion to 

dismiss for insufficient service and lack of personal jurisdiction filed on May 18, 2009 (Dkt. No. 

476), which the Philips Defendants incorporate into the March 2014 motion by reference;3

WHEREAS, the Philips Defendants’ May 2009 motion argues that this Court lacks personal 

jurisdiction over them and provides declarations from their employees in support of their motion;

WHEREAS, the Philips Defendants’ March 2014 motion argues, among other things, that the 

IPPs have failed to prosecute the case against them;

WHEREAS, the IPPs’ required a one and a half page increase in the page length of their 

opposition to adequately address the issues raised in the May 2009 and March 2014 motions and 

supporting declarations;

WHEREAS, IPPs’ memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the Philips 

Defendants’ motions to dismiss is just over 26 pages;

WHEREAS, the Philips Defendants’ motion is not scheduled for oral argument until May 30, 

2014;

 1 The IPPs’ amended complaints name Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd. and Philips da Amazonia Industria 

Ltda. as defendants. Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd. has been merged into Philips Taiwan Limited and 

Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda. has been merged into Philips do Brasil Ltda.

2 Undersigned counsel from Baker Botts L.L.P. are only appearing to assert the Philips Defendants’ motion to dismiss 

for insufficient service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. This appearance is not meant to, and does not, 

constitute a general appearance or a waiver of any objections the Philips Defendants have to the sufficiency of the IPPs’ 

service of process and allegations related to personal jurisdiction

3 See Dkt No. 2470 at p.1, fn. 3. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2551 Filed 04/29/14 Page 2 of 4
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 - MDL 1917

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PAGE LIMITS AND BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR THE PHILIPS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENT 

SERVICE OF PROCESS AND LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

WHEREAS, counsel for the Philips Defendants and counsel for the IPPs have met and 

conferred and have agreed upon page limits relating to the IPPs’ opposition brief and a mutually 

acceptable briefing schedule relating to the Philips Defendants’ reply brief in support of their motion 

to dismiss;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the Philips Defendants and 

the IPPs that:

1. The IPPs’ 27 page opposition brief is deemed permissible .

2. The Philips Defendants shall file their reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss on 

or before May 1, 2014. This revised briefing schedule will have no impact on the 

currently scheduled hearing date for the Philips Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

* * *

The undersigned parties jointly and respectfully request that the Court enter this stipulation 

as an order.

Dated: April 22, 2014 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.

By: /s/ Erik T. Koons

Jon V. Swenson (SBN 233054)

1001 Page Mill Road

Building One, Suite 200

Palo Alto, CA 94304 

Telephone: (650) 739-7500

Facsimile: (650) 739-7699

Email: jon.swenson@bakerbotts.com

John M. Taladay (pro hac vice)

Joseph Ostoyich (pro hac vice)

Erik T. Koons (pro hac vice)

Charles M. Malaise (pro hac vice)

BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.

1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20004-2400

Telephone: (202) 639-7700

Facsimile: (202) 639-7890

Email: john.taladay@bakerbotts.com

Email: joseph.ostyoich@bakerbotts.com

Email: erik.koons@bakerbotts.com

Email: charles.malaise@bakerbotts.com

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2551 Filed 04/29/14 Page 3 of 4
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 - MDL 1917

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PAGE LIMITS AND BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR THE PHILIPS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENT 

SERVICE OF PROCESS AND LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Attorneys Specially Appearing for 

Defendants Philips Taiwan Limited and 

Philips do Brasil Ltda.

TRUMP, ALIOTO, TRUMP & PRESCOTT, 

LLP

By: /s/ Mario N. Alioto

MARIO N. ALIOTO (SBN 56433)

Email: malioto@tatp.com

LAUREN C. CAPURRO (SBN 241151)

Email: laurenrussell@tatp.com

TRUMP, ALIOTO, TRUMP & 

PRESCOTT, LLP

2280 Union Street

San Francisco, CA 94123

Telephone: (415) 563-7200

Facsimile: (415) 346-0679

Interim Lead Counsel for the Indirect 

Purchaser Plaintiffs

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________ ________________________________

 Hon. Samuel Conti

 United States District Judge

04/28/2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2551 Filed 04/29/14 Page 4 of 4