The State of New York v. AU Optronics Corporation et al
The State of New York |
Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America Electronics, Components Inc., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd., Sharp Electronics Corporation, Sharp Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation America, Inc., Chi Mei Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., CMO Japan Ltd., Hitachi Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd., LG Display America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and AU Optronics Corporation |
3:2011cv00711 |
February 18, 2011 |
US District Court for the Northern District of California |
San Francisco Office |
XX US, Outside State |
Susan Illston |
Antitrust |
15 U.S.C. ยง 1 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 153 ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting (5054) Stipulation in case 3:07-md-01827-SI; granting (152) Stipulation in case 3:11-cv-00711-SI (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2012) |
Filing 149 ORDER approving revised form of notice and resetting hearing.. Signed by Judge Illston on 2/2/12. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2012) |
Filing 140 ORDER extending deadline to respond to amended complaint (#4545) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2012) |
Filing 137 ORDER RE: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL HEARING (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2011) |
Filing 134 ORDER Re: time to respond to amended complaint (#4285) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2011) |
Filing 130 ORDER ORDER Extending Sharp's Time to Answer (State of New York) Amended Complaint by Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2011) |
Filing 127 ORDER granting extention to respond (#4168) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2011) |
Filing 125 ORDER GRANTING NEW YORK'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING IN PART RECONSIDERATION (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2011) |
Filing 122 ORDER granting extension (4011) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2011) |
Filing 116 Order Regarding Time to File Expert Disclosure by The State of New York (11-0711) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2011) |
Filing 107 ORDER Extending the Toshiba Entities' Time to Answer Amended Complaint by Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd. (3582) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2011) |
Filing 101 ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT (3542) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2011) |
Filing 94 ORDER Re: STIPULATION of Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint and [Proposed] Order by LG Display America, Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd.. (Lazerwitz, Michael) (Filed on 8/22/2011 (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2011) |
Filing 83 ORDER w/signature #3028 ORDER Granting Motion to File Under Seal (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2011) |
Filing 80 ORDER Re: #75 filed in 11-0711 (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2011) |
Filing 71 ORDER dismissing certain claims (counsel is reminded to include all case numbers on the face sheet of documents if the document applies to more than just the MDL case, and also to be more detailed in the caption of the document) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2011) |
Filing 63 ORDER TERMINATING/WITHDRAWING MOTION TO REMAND AS MOOT (C-11-711) re 62 Stipulation. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2011) Modified on 3/23/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF). |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.