Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 07-5944 SC (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20140910712 Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 08, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 08, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND [ PROPOSED ] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PANASONIC DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO COMPEL ARBITRATION SAMUEL CONTI, Sr., District Judge. WHEREAS, on August 25, 2014, Defendants Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, and MT Picture Display Co., Ltd. (collectively, "Panasonic") filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration (the "Motion to Dismiss") against Plaintiff ViewSonic Corporation ("ViewSo
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PANASONIC DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

SAMUEL CONTI, Sr., District Judge.

WHEREAS, on August 25, 2014, Defendants Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, and MT Picture Display Co., Ltd. (collectively, "Panasonic") filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration (the "Motion to Dismiss") against Plaintiff ViewSonic Corporation ("ViewSonic").

WHEREAS, Panasonic's Motion to Dismiss is tentatively set for hearing on October 10, 2014 at 10:00 a.m before this Court;

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred, and have agreed to a revised briefing schedule for the Motion to Dismiss;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel to the respective parties that, in light of the parties' agreement on a revised briefing schedule and subject to the Court's approval, the hearing date for the Motion to Dismiss shall be continued to October 24, 2014;

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel to the respective parties that, any oppositions to the Motion to Dismiss shall be filed on or before September 22, 2014, and any replies to the Motion to Dismiss shall be filed on or before October 6, 2014.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

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 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