Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02738/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02738-1/pdf.json

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

 -1- 

STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO 

 ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

RENATA B. HESSE, State Bar No. 148425 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

1700 K Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 10006-3817 

Telephone: (202) 973-8800 

Facsimile: (202) 973-8899 

Email: RHesse@wsgr.com 

LISA A. DAVIS, State Bar No. 179854 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

Email: LDavis@wsgr.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

TRANSITIONS OPTICAL, INC. 

JENNIFER SERAPHINE, State Bar No. 245463 

JONES DAY 

555 California Street, 26th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 875-5892 

Facsimile: (415) 875-5700 

Email: jseraphine@jonesday.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ESSILOR OF AMERICA, INC. and 

ESSILOR LABORATORIES OF AMERICA, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ERIC TERRELL, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TRANSITIONS OPTICAL, INC., ESSILOR OF 

AMERICA, INC., and ESSILOR 

LABORATORIES OF AMERICA, INC. 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 3:10-cv-02738-RS 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME 

FOR DEFENDANT TO ANSWER, 

MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND 

TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

PURSUANT TO CIV. L.R. 6-1(a) 

*E-Filed 8/4/10*

Case 3:10-cv-02738-RS Document 7 Filed 08/04/10 Page 1 of 7
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 RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO 

 ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1(a), plaintiff Eric Terrell (“Plaintiff”) and defendants Transitions 

Optical, Inc. (“TOI”), Essilor of America, Inc. and Essilor Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, 

“Essilor”) (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby stipulate: 

WHEREAS, on or about June 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action, which 

alleges violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff styled the action as a proposed class action; 

WHEREAS, as of the date of this stipulation, several other plaintiffs have filed class action 

complaints in this District, including: Donohoe v. Transitions Optical, Inc., 10-cv-01984-RS (N.D. 

Cal); and O’Keefe v. Transitions Optical, Inc., 10-cv-3099-RS (N.D. Cal.). 

WHEREAS, as of the date of this stipulation, numerous other plaintiffs have filed 

complaints in other federal courts, including: First Image Optical v. Transitions Optical Inc., et 

al., 10-cv-01032-RAL-TGW (M.D. Fla.); B & B Eyes, Inc. v. Transitions Optical, Inc., et al., 10-

cv-00984-JDW-EAJ (M.D. Fla.); Railway Optical, Inc. v. Transitions Optical, Inc., et al., 10-cv01004-JDW-TGW (M.D. Fla.); Achtman v. Transitions Optical, Inc., 10-cv-01158-EAK-MAP 

(M.D. Fla.); Klein v. Transitions Optical, Inc., et al., 10-cv-01358-VMC-TBM (M.D. Fla.); Arthur 

L. Cartier Optics v. Transitions Optical, Inc., et al., 2:10-cv-00694-MJP (W.D. Wa.); Nouveau 

Vision v. Transitions Optical Inc., et al., 10-cv-00547-JCC (W.D. Wa.); Pennachio & Fishman v. 

Transitions Optical Inc., et al., 10-cv-00730-BAT (W.D. Wa.); Dr. Robert A. Sherman PC v. 

Transitions Optical, Inc., et al., 10-01044 (W.D. Wa.); Metropolitan Optical, Inc. v. Transitions 

Optical, Inc., et al., 10-cv-01046 (W.D. Wa.); Point of View v. Transitions Optical Inc., et al., 10-

cv-00761-JLR (W.D. Wa.); See-Mor Optical of Hewlett, Inc. v. Transitions Optical Inc., et al., 10-

cv-21289-DLG (S.D. Fla.); Gary Steven Eyes, Inc. v. Transitions Optical, Inc., et al., 10-cv21518 (S.D. Fla.); Optical Supply, Inc. v. Transitions Optical, Inc., et al., 10-cv-21739-ASG (S.D. 

Fla.); Sickbert Family Eye Care, LLC v. Transitions Optical Inc., et al., 10-cv-00881-F (N.D. 

Tex.); Carmel Mountain Vision Care v. Transitions Optical, Inc. et al., 10-cv-00835-RJL 

(D.D.C.); and Blake v. Transitions Optical, Inc., et al., 10-cv-02328-EFM-DJW (D. Kan.); 

WHEREAS, as of the date of this stipulation, other plaintiffs have filed complaints in state 

courts, which have subsequently been removed to federal courts, including: Gable v. Transitions 

Case 3:10-cv-02738-RS Document 7 Filed 08/04/10 Page 2 of 7
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 RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO 

 ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

Optical Inc., et al., 10-cv-00487-JVS-AN (C.D. Cal.); and Sabani v. Transitions Optical Inc., et 

al., 10-cv-00332 (E.D. Wis.); 

WHEREAS, each of these complaints alleges federal or state antitrust actions as against 

Defendant TOI and/or Defendants Essilor of America, Inc., Essilor Laboratories of America, Inc., 

and/or Essilor International SA and are styled as proposed class actions (collectively, the “Related 

Actions”); 

WHEREAS, currently pending before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict 

Litigation (“JPML”) are motions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for transfer and coordination 

or consolidation of all related civil actions, including this action and the Related Actions, for 

pretrial proceedings regarding alleged antitrust violations in the claimed market for the 

development, manufacture and sale of photochromic treatments for corrective ophthalmic lenses; 

WHEREAS, the Courts in six of the Related Actions, B & B Eyes, Inc. v. Transitions 

Optical, Inc., et al., 10-cv-00984-JDW-EAJ (M.D. Fla.); Railway Optical, Inc. v. Transitions 

Optical, Inc., et al., 10-cv-01004-JDW-TGW (M.D. Fla.); First Image Optical v. Transitions 

Optical Inc., et al., 10-cv-01032-RAL-TGW (M.D. Fla.); Gary Steven Eyes, Inc., v. Transitions 

Optical, Inc., et al., 10-cv-21518 (S.D. Fla.); See-Mor Optical of Hewlett, Inc. v. Transitions 

Optical Inc., et al., 10-cv-21289-DLG (S.D. Fla.); and Optical Supply, Inc. v. Transitions Optical, 

Inc., et al., 10-cv-21739-DLG (S.D. Fla.) have approved an extension of time for defendants in 

those actions to respond to the respective complaints and have stayed other pretrial deadlines and 

discovery pending the disposition of the motions pending before the JPML. The courts in eleven 

additional Related Actions, Carmel Mountain Vision Care v. Transitions Optical, Inc., et al., 10-

cv-00835-RJL (D.D.C.); Arthur L. Cartier Optics v. Transitions Optical Inc., et al., 10-cv-00694-

MJP (W.D. Wash.); Nouveau Vision, Inc. v. Transitions Optical Inc., et al., 10-cv-00547-JCC 

(W.D. Wash.); Pennachio & Fishman, M.D., P.A. v. Transitions Optical Inc., et al., 10-cv-00730-

BAT (W.D. Wash.); Point of View, Inc. v. Transitions Optical Inc., et al., 10-cv-00761-JLR (W.D. 

Wash.); Donohoe v. Transitions Optical, Inc., 10-cv-1098-MEJ (N.D. Cal.); Gable v. Transitions 

Optical Inc., et al., 10-cv-00487-JVS-AN (C.D. Cal.); Sabani v. Transitions Optical Inc., et al., 

10-cv-00332 (E.D. Wis.); Achtman v. Transitions Optical, Inc., 10-cv-01158-EAK-MAP (M.D. 

Case 3:10-cv-02738-RS Document 7 Filed 08/04/10 Page 3 of 7
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 RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO 

 ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

Fla.); Blake v. Transitions Optical, Inc., et al., 10-cv-02328-EFM-DJW (D. Kan.) and Sickbert 

Family Eye Care, LLC v. Transitions Optical Inc., et al., 10-cv-00881-F (N.D. Tex.) have entered 

orders approving essentially the same terms proposed by Plaintiff and Defendants here. 

WHEREAS, in light of the proceedings before the JPML, the orders granting stipulations 

in the Related Actions, the potential for additional complaints in this and other various 

jurisdictions, and the complex nature of Plaintiff’s allegations, Plaintiff and Defendants, by and 

through their undersigned counsel, stipulate to the following Order: 

(1) Defendants’ time to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Complaint is hereby 

extended until disposition of the JPML proceeding as provided below. 

 (a) If the JPML transfers this case and all related civil actions to a single 

district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, 

Defendants shall, as permitted by Federal Rule 12, answer, move or otherwise plead in response to 

the complaint in the above captioned action (the “Complaint”) within 45 days after either: (i) the 

plaintiffs in the consolidated or coordinated actions serve consolidated amended complaints, or (ii) 

the plaintiffs in the consolidated or coordinated actions serve notice that they will not file 

consolidated amended complaints. 

 (b) If the JPML denies the motions to transfer this case and all related civil 

actions to a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, Defendants shall, 

as permitted by Federal Rule 12, answer, move or otherwise plead in response to the Complaint 

within 45 days after service of the JPML ruling. 

In either event, if Defendants file any motions pursuant to Rule 12, Plaintiff shall respond 

to any such motions within 60 days. Defendants shall file their replies, if any, within 45 days of 

the date when Plaintiff’s response is due. 

(2) Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants shall serve discovery requests or seek a case 

scheduling conference or order in this matter until disposition of the JPML proceeding. If a 

plaintiff in any of the Related Actions serves a discovery request or seeks a case scheduling 

conference or order, or a court in any of the Related Actions orders an answer or responsive 

pleading or issues a discovery-related order prior to disposition of the JPML proceeding, 

Case 3:10-cv-02738-RS Document 7 Filed 08/04/10 Page 4 of 7
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 RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO 

 ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

Defendants shall move to set aside such requests or orders, and Plaintiff shall not oppose any such 

motions. Notwithstanding the above, if any Defendant files an answer or other responsive 

pleading in any of the Related Actions before the date required by this stipulation, or responds to 

any discovery, such Defendant will concurrently file its answer or responsive pleading, or produce 

the same discovery, in this matter. Any discovery production will be subject to a protective order 

to be negotiated by the parties. 

(3) Plaintiff and Defendants further stipulate and agree that the entry into this 

stipulation by Defendants shall not constitute a waiver of any jurisdictional defenses, other than 

personal jurisdiction, that may be available under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

a waiver of any affirmative defenses under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or a 

waiver of any other statutory or common law defenses that may be available to Defendant in this 

and the other Related Actions. Defendants expressly reserves their rights to raise any such 

defenses in response to either the current Complaint or any amended complaint that may be filed 

relating to this action. 

(4) Defendants agree that they have been served or have agreed to waive service with 

respect to this action. 

(5) All parties agree that they will preserve documents and other materials relevant to 

this action and the Related Actions, or otherwise discoverable in this action. 

In accord with Civil L.R. 6-1(a), this change will not alter the date of any event or any 

deadline already fixed by Court Order. Other than the Case Management Conference set for 

September 29, 2010, the parties are unaware of any other pending deadlines or events fixed by 

Court Order in this case. 

Dated: August 2, 2010 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

A Professional Corporation 

By: /s/ Lisa A. Davis 

 Lisa A. Davis 

Attorneys for Transitions Optical, Inc. 

Case 3:10-cv-02738-RS Document 7 Filed 08/04/10 Page 5 of 7
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 RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO 

 ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

Dated: August 2, 2010 THE TERRELL LAW GROUP

By: /s/ Reginald Terrell 

 Reginald Terrell 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class 

Eric Terrell 

Dated: August 2, 2010 JONES DAY

By: /s/ Jennifer Seraphine 

 Jennifer Seraphine 

Attorneys for Defendants Essilor of America, 

Inc. and Essilor Laboratories of America, Inc. 

Case 3:10-cv-02738-RS Document 7 Filed 08/04/10 Page 6 of 7
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 RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO 

 ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

PROPOSED ORDER

 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Defendant’s time to file its 

response to Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby extended in accordance with the Stipulation re 

Extension of Time for Defendant to Answer, Move or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint 

Pursuant to CIV. L.R. 6-1(a). 

Dated: ___________, 2010 

By: 

The Honorable Richard Seeborg 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

8/4

Case 3:10-cv-02738-RS Document 7 Filed 08/04/10 Page 7 of 7