Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00760/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00760-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

-1- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

3:15-CV-00760-CRB

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

ROBERT P. VARIAN (SBN 107459)

rvarian@orrick.com

JAMES N. KRAMER (SBN 154709)

jkramer@orrick.com

STEPHEN M. KNASTER (SBN 146236)

sknaster@orrick.com

ALEXANDER K. TALARIDES (SBN 268068)

atalarides@orrick.com

JUDY KWAN (SBN 273930)

jkwan@orrick.com

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

The Orrick Building

405 Howard Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (415) 773-5700

Facsimile: (415) 773-5759

Attorneys for Defendants

NVIDIA CORPORATION, ASUS COMPUTER 

INTERNATIONAL, GIGABYTE GLOBAL 

BUSINESS CORPORATION, and 

TIGERDIRECT, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN RE: NVIDIA GTX 970 GRAPHICS CHIP 

LITIGATION

Master Case No. 3:15-cv-00760-CRB

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

EXTENDING TIME FOR 

DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO 

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CIVIL 

This Document Relates to: All Actions LOCAL RULE 6-2

Case 4:15-cv-00760-PJH Document 72 Filed 07/02/15 Page 1 of 4
-2- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

3:15-CV-00760-CRB

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

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiffs and Defendants NVIDIA Corporation 

(“NVIDIA”), Asus Computer International, Gigabyte Global Business Corporation d/b/a GigaByte Technology Co. Ltd. and TigerDirect, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), through their 

respective counsel, HEREBY STIPULATE and AGREE as follows:

 RECITALS

WHEREAS, this action was consolidated by Court order dated March 24, 2015;

WHEREAS, the Court’s order granted parties’ stipulation for Defendants’ to file 

responsive pleadings to the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“CAC”) within 

thirty (30) days after service, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties and approved by the 

Court;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their CAC on June 8, 2015;

WHEREAS, Defendants’ response to the CAC is presently due on or before July 8, 2015;

WHEREAS, the parties have conferred and agreed to extend the time by which

Defendants must respond to the CAC to July 15, 2015; 

WHEREAS, the parties have conferred and have also agreed to extend the deadline for 

Plaintiffs to file oppositions to any Rule 12 motions by August 14, 2015 and for Defendants to 

file any reply by September 4, 2015;

WHEREAS, the extension of time agreed upon by the parties will not alter or affect any 

other event or deadline fixed by the Court’s Scheduling Order;

STIPULATION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Plaintiffs and Defendants, through their 

designated counsel of record, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, that Defendants may respond to 

the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on or before July 15, 2015. Plaintiffs 

will have until August 14, 2015 to file any opposition, and Defendants, until September 4, 2015 

to file any reply. The hearing on the motion shall be set for September 18, 2015 at 10 a.m., or at 

the Court’s earliest convenience.

Case 4:15-cv-00760-PJH Document 72 Filed 07/02/15 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

3:15-CV-00760-CRB

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

Dated: June 29, 2015 WHATLEY KALLAS LLP

By: /s/ Alan M. Mansfield

Alan M. Mansfield

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

 

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.

By: /s/ L. Timothy Fisher

L. Timothy Fisher

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

 

Dated: June 29, 2015 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

By: /s/ Robert P. Varian

ROBERT P. VARIAN

Attorneys for Defendants

NVIDIA CORPORATION, ASUS 

COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, 

GIGABYTE GLOBAL BUSINESS 

CORPORATION 

and TIGERDIRECT, INC. 

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, §X(B), I attest under penalty of 

perjury that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from its signatory. 

Dated: June 29, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Robert P. Varian

ROBERT P. VARIAN

Case 4:15-cv-00760-PJH Document 72 Filed 07/02/15 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

3:15-CV-00760-CRB

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

 ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________

Charles R. Breyer

United States District Judge

Signed: July 1,2015

Case 4:15-cv-00760-PJH Document 72 Filed 07/02/15 Page 4 of 4