Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 07-cv-5944 JST (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160624853 Visitors: 13
Filed: Jun. 23, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 23, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . Plaintiffs Electrograph Systems, Inc. and Electrograph Technologies Corp.; Interbond Corporation of America; Office Depot, Inc.; P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation; ABC Appliance, Inc.; MARTA Cooperative of America, Inc.; Tech Data Corporation and Tech Data Product Management, Inc.; and Schultze Agency Services on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and Tweeter Newco, LLC (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), and Defendants Mitsubishi Electri
More

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiffs Electrograph Systems, Inc. and Electrograph Technologies Corp.; Interbond Corporation of America; Office Depot, Inc.; P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation; ABC Appliance, Inc.; MARTA Cooperative of America, Inc.; Tech Data Corporation and Tech Data Product Management, Inc.; and Schultze Agency Services on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and Tweeter Newco, LLC (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), and Defendants Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc., formerly known as Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.; and Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc., individually and as successor to Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc.1 ("Mitsubishi Electric"), on the other hand, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. Plaintiffs and Mitsubishi Electric seek dismissal of these actions with prejudice as brought against Mitsubishi Electric only.

2. Plaintiffs and Mitsubishi Electric agree that each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees in connection with this action.

3. This stipulation does not affect the rights or claims of Plaintiffs against any defendant or alleged co-conspirator in this litigation other than Mitsubishi Electric.

WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that this Court issue an Order of Dismissal with respect to Plaintiffs' actions as brought against Mitsubishi Electric only.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i), the filer attests that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the below signatories.

FootNotes


1. The Court previously granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. and Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc. [Dkt. No. 4559]. The Court, however, has not yet entered a final judgment in favor of those parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The parties have included Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. and Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc. in this Stipulation in order to bring finality to these proceedings between Plaintiffs and Mitsubishi Electric.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer