Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 1917. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20170914972 Visitors: 12
Filed: Sep. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 13, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY THE COURT AGAINST THE IRICO DEFENDANTS (MDL DKT NO. 5191) JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (" Plaintiffs ") and Defendants Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd. and Irico Group Corporation (together, " Irico "), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, on August 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an Application F
More

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT BY THE COURT AGAINST THE IRICO DEFENDANTS (MDL DKT NO. 5191)

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd. and Irico Group Corporation (together, "Irico"), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, on August 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an Application For Default Judgment By The Court Against The Irico Defendants (the "Default Judgment Application") (MDL Dkt. No. 5191);

WHEREAS, on August 22, 2017, the Court entered its Order providing that Irico would have two weeks from Plaintiffs' filing on the docket of a proof of service of the Default Judgment Application to file a response, and Plaintiffs would have one additional week to file a reply brief (MDL Dkt. No. 5196);

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed such proof of service on August 30, 2017 (MDL Dkt. No. 5199);

WHEREAS, new undersigned counsel for Irico filed notices of appearances and/or motions for admission pro hac vice on September 8, 2017 (MDL Dkt. Nos. 5200-5203);

WHEREAS, Irico's counsel needs a reasonable period of time to become familiar with the issues in the case and prepare a response to the Default Judgment Application; and

WHEREAS, Irico's counsel has conferred with Plaintiffs' counsel and obtained Plaintiffs' consent to an extension of Irico's time to respond to the Default Judgment Application until October 4, 2017. Plaintiffs do not concede that Irico has an unlimited right to respond substantively to the issues raised by Plaintiffs' application for a default and/or to submit evidence or argument in response to that submitted by Plaintiffs.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for Irico and Plaintiffs, that:

Irico's response to the Default Judgment Application shall be due on or before October 4, 2017;

Plaintiffs' reply in further support of their Default Judgment Application shall be due on or before October 11, 2017; and

The Court shall re-set the hearing on Plaintiffs' Default Judgment Application at its convenience. shall be held on November 16, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, § X-B, the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the above signatories.

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