Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02066/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02066-0/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 

W02-WEST:FNO\400307573.1 STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO 

RESPOND 

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

A Limited Liability Partnership 

Including Professional Corporations 

GARY L. HALLING, Cal. Bar No. 66087 

JAMES L. MCGINNIS, Cal. Bar No. 95788 

MONA SOLOUKI, Cal. Bar No. 215145 

Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111-4109 

Telephone: 415-434-9100 

Facsimile: 415-434-3947 

Email: ghalling@sheppardmullin.com 

Email: jmcginnnis@sheppardmullin.com 

Email: msolouki@sheppardmullin.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTOPHER RIPPEL, on behalf of 

himself and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et 

al., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 07-02066-SC 

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO 

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 

Complaint filed April 11, 2007

Case 4:07-cv-02066-SBA Document 14 Filed 05/10/07 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 

W02-WEST:FNO\400307573.1 - 2 - STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO 

RESPOND 

WHEREAS the undersigned Plaintiff Christopher Rippel has filed a Complaint in 

the above-captioned case on or about April 11, 2007; 

WHEREAS more than twenty-one complaints, including Plaintiff's complaint, 

have been filed to date in the Northern District of California, and one complaint has been filed in 

the Southern District of New York by plaintiffs bringing class actions on behalf of either direct or 

indirect purchasers alleging price fixing by manufacturers of Flash Memory (collectively, “the 

Flash Memory Cases”); 

WHEREAS a motion is currently pending before the Judicial Panel on 

Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to transfer the Flash Memory Cases to a single judge for 

consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407; 

WHEREAS eighteen of the Flash Memory Cases pending in the Northern District 

of California already have been related to the Honorable Judge Saundra B. Armstrong, and a 

motion is currently pending before Judge Armstrong to consider whether this and other actions 

pending in this District also should be related; 

WHEREAS the parties believe that the Flash Memory Cases will be consolidated 

or coordinated either as multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) or as a group of related cases within the 

Northern District of California, and anticipate that, in either instance, Plaintiffs will likely file 

separate Consolidated Amended Complaints for the direct and indirect Flash Memory Cases; 

WHEREAS the parties have agreed that an orderly schedule for any response to 

the pleadings in the Flash Memory Cases is more efficient for the parties and for the Court; 

WHEREAS Plaintiff agrees that the deadline for Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. 

(“SSI”) to respond to the Complaint in the above-captioned case shall be extended until the earlier 

of the following two dates: (1) forty-five days after the filing of Consolidated Amended 

Complaints in the direct and indirect Flash Memory Cases either in the MDL transferee Court or 

in the Court in which the Flash Memory Cases pending in this District are consolidated and/or 

coordinated in the Northern District of California; or (2) forty-five days after Plaintiffs provide 

written notice to SSI that they do not intend to file Consolidated Amended Complaints in the 

direct and indirect Flash Memory Cases, provided that such notice may be given only at or after 

Case 4:07-cv-02066-SBA Document 14 Filed 05/10/07 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 

W02-WEST:FNO\400307573.1 - 3 - STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO 

RESPOND 

the initial case management conference either in the MDL transferee Court or in the Court in 

which all Flash Memory Cases pending in this District are consolidated and/or coordinated in the 

Northern District of California;

WHEREAS Plaintiff further agrees that this extension is available, without further 

stipulation with counsel for Plaintiffs, to all named Defendants who notify Plaintiff in writing of 

their intention to join this extension; 

WHEREAS Plaintiff and Defendant SSI (and any other named Defendants who 

provide notice of their intention to join this extension pursuant to the preceding paragraph) agree 

that each such defense counsel shall accept service on behalf of the Defendant that provided 

notice of its intention to join this extension of all complaints in the above-captioned matter, 

including any amended or consolidated complaints, and further, that such Defendant shall not 

contest the sufficiency of process or service of process. This Stipulation does not constitute a 

waiver of any other defense, including but not limited to, the defense of lack of personal or 

subject matter jurisdiction; 

PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT SSI, BY AND THROUGH THEIR 

RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD, HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: 

1. The deadline for Defendant SSI to respond to the Complaint in the abovecaptioned case shall be extended until the earlier of the following two dates: (1) forty-five days 

after the filing of Consolidated Amended Complaints in the direct and indirect Flash Memory 

Cases either in the MDL transferee Court or in the Court in which the Flash Memory Cases 

pending in this District are consolidated and/or coordinated in the Northern District of California; 

or (2) forty-five days after Plaintiffs provide written notice to SSI that they do not intend to file 

Consolidated Amended Complaints in the direct and indirect Flash Memory Cases, provided that 

such notice may be given only at or after the initial case management conference either in the 

MDL transferee Court or in the Court in which all Flash Memory Cases pending in this District 

are consolidated and/or coordinated in the Northern District of California. 

Case 4:07-cv-02066-SBA Document 14 Filed 05/10/07 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 

W02-WEST:FNO\400307573.1 - 4 - STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO 

RESPOND 

2. This extension is available, without further stipulation with counsel for 

Plaintiff, to all named Defendants who notify Plaintiff in writing of their intention to join this 

extension.

3. Defendant SSI (and any other named Defendants who provide notice of 

their intention to join this extension pursuant to the preceding paragraph) agree that each such 

defense counsel shall accept service on behalf of the defendant that provided notice of its 

intention to join the extension of all complaints in the above-captioned matter, including any 

amended or consolidated complaints, and further, that such defendant shall not contest the 

sufficiency of process or service of process. This Stipulation does not constitute a waiver of any 

other defense, including but not limited to, the defense of lack of personal or subject matter 

jurisdiction.

4. Plaintiff and Defendant SSI (and any other named Defendants who provide 

notice of their intention to join this extension pursuant to the preceding paragraph) agree that 

notwithstanding the above paragraphs, should any defendant to whom this extension applies 

respond to any complaint in another Flash Memory case filed in another United States District 

Court or a state court prior to the date contemplated by this Stipulation, then such defendant shall 

make a simultaneous response to the complaint in the above-captioned matter. 

 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: May 8, 2007 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

By: /s/ Mona Solouki 

Mona Solouki 

Attorneys for Defendant Samsung Semiconductor, 

Inc. 

Dated: May 8, 2007 CAREY & DANIS 

By: /s/ Michael J. Flannery 

Michael J. Flannery 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Christopher Rippel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 4:07-cv-02066-SBA Document 14 Filed 05/10/07 Page 4 of 4