STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL OF COSTCO'S STATE LAW CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG SDI

SAMUEL A. CONTI, District Judge.

WHEREAS, on November 14, 2011, Costco Wholesale Corporation ("Costco") filed a Complaint and Jury Demand in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hitachi, Ltd., Case No. 2:11-cv-01909-RSM, alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1), the California Cartwright Act (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16700 et seq.), the Washington Consumer Protection Act (RCW 19.86.030), the Arizona Antitrust Act (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-1401 et seq.), the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Florida Stat. § 501.201 et seq.), and the Illinois Antitrust Act (740 Illinois Code 10/1 et seq.);

WHEREAS, on November 28, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a conditional transfer order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, transferring the Costco action to the Northern District of California, to be consolidated with MDL No. 1917, In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, No. 07-cv-5944-SC (the "MDL");

WHEREAS, the Costco Action was transferred to the Northern District of California;

WHEREAS, on August 17, 2012, various defendants filed a joint Motion to Dismiss and for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Certain Direct Action Plaintiffs' Claims, including Costco's, on various grounds (Dkt. No. 1317);

WHEREAS, on March 26, 2013, Direct Action Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaints, which included a request by Costco to amend its complaint to add Samsung SDI America, Inc., Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., Samsung SDI Mexico S.A de C.V., Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda., Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., and Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. (collectively "SDI") as defendants (Dkt. No. 1609);

WHEREAS, on August 21, 2013, the Court issued an order adopting the Special Master's recommendation that Costco's claim under Washington state law be dismissed without leave to amend (Dkt. No. 1856);

WHEREAS, on September 26, 2013, the Court issued an order adopting the Interim Special Master's recommendation that Costco be allowed to amend its complaint to add SDI as a defendant (Dkt. No. 1959);

WHEREAS, on October 3, 2013, Costco filed a First Amended Complaint in the Northern District of California, Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Hitachi, Ltd., Case No. 3:11-cv-06397, Master File No. 3:07-cv-05944-SC (Dkt. No. 1982), naming SDI as a defendant;

WHEREAS, on November 4, 2013, SDI filed a Motion to Dismiss Costco's claims under the California Cartwright Act, the Arizona Antitrust Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the Illinois Antitrust Act (Dkt. No. 2171);

NOW, THEREFORE, COSTCO AND SDI, BY AND THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD, HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Costco's claims against SDI under the California Cartwright Act, the Arizona Antitrust Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the Illinois Antitrust Act are dismissed with prejudice;

2. SDI's Motion to Dismiss Costco's state-law claims is withdrawn as moot;

3. This stipulation and the Court's order thereon shall have no bearing on Costco's Sherman Act claim against SDI;

4. SDI's answer to Costco's First Amended Complaint shall be due on the first business day thirty (30) days after the Court enters this stipulation as an order; and

5. The undersigned parties jointly and respectfully request that the Court enter this stipulation as an order.

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 above signatories.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.