In re: Indirect Plaintiff Class, et al v. LG Display Co., Ltd., et al
| EPSON IMAGING DEVICES CORPORATION, NEC DISPLAY SOLUTIONS OF AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG SDI AMERICA, INC., TATUNG COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, EPSON ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD., TATUNG COMPANY, SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD., HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), INC., CMO JAPAN CO., LTD., CHIMEI INNOLUX CORP., SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONICS COMPONENTS, INC., NEXGEN MEDIATECH USA INC., MITSUI & CO. (TAIWAN), LIMITED, TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., HITACHI DISPLAYS, LTD., SANYO CONSUMER ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., LG DISPLAY AMERICA, INC., NEC CORPORATION OF AMERICA, NEC LCD TECHNOLOGIES, LTD., CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES LTD., MITSUI & CO. (U.S.A.), INC., PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, SHARP CORPORATION, NEC ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., TOSHIBA MATSUSHITA DISPLAY TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS USA, INC., NEC ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., HANNSTAR DISPLAY CORPORATION, LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., CHI MEI CORPORATION, NEC CORPORATION, HITACHI LTD., AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and TOSHIBA MOBILE DISPLAY CO., LTD. |
| In re: TFT-LCD, (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation |
| JOHNNY KESSEL, ALISON PAUL and LEVETA CHESSER |
| INDIRECT PLAINTIFF CLASS |
| 13-15929 |
| May 7, 2013 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Antitrust |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 23, 2014. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 23 Filed order (Deputy Clerk: MAC): Appellants motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal is granted. Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). A copy of this order shall serve as and for the mandate of this court. [9107634] (AF) [Entered: 05/23/2014 03:05 PM] |
| Filing 22 Filed (ECF) Appellants Leveta Chesser, Johnny Kessel and Alison Paul Motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b). Date of service: 05/22/2014. [9105842] (Palmer, Joseph) [Entered: 05/22/2014 12:00 PM] |
| Filing 21 Filed (ECF) Appellants Leveta Chesser, Johnny Kessel and Alison Paul reply to response (). Date of service: 10/31/2013. [8845728] (Palmer, Joseph) [Entered: 10/31/2013 02:16 PM] |
| Filing 20 Filed (ECF) Appellee Indirect Plaintiff Class response opposing motion (motion to extend time to file brief,motion to reinstate case after FRAP 42-1 dismissal). Date of service: 10/21/2013. [8830064] (Clayton, Patrick) [Entered: 10/21/2013 04:41 PM] |
| Filing 19 Filed order MEDIATION (CLB): The Class Plaintiffs Opposition to Appellants Motion to Reinstate Appeal and Appellants Reply thereto disclose confidential communications made in connection with the mediation process conducted pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 33-1. The Clerk shall remove from the docket the opposition filed September 30, 2013, and the reply filed October 7, 2013. Within seven (7) days of the entry of this order, Class Plaintiffs shall file a substitute opposition which does not violate the courts mediation confidentiality rules. See Rule 33-1. Particularly, Class Plaintiffs shall remove Exhibit A to the Declaration of Patrick Clayton. Within seven (7) days of the filing of Class Plaintiffs Substitute Opposition, appellants shall file a substitute reply which does not violate the courts mediation confidentiality rules. See Rule 33-1. Particularly, appellants shall remove all information contained in paragraph 2 of page 1 of the reply. [8827746] (BJB) [Entered: 10/18/2013 03:30 PM] |
| Filing 18 Deleted Incorrect Entry (Per Order Filed 10/18/2013) ****** COURT DELETED INCORRECT/DUPLICATE ENTRY. Notice about deletion sent to case participants registered for electronic filing. Original Text: Filed (ECF) Appellants Leveta Chesser, Johnny Kessel and Alison Paul reply to response (). Date of service: 10/07/2013. [8812627] (Palmer, Joseph) [Entered: 10/07/2013 09:51 PM] |
| Filing 17 Terminated Appellees NEC Corporation, NEC Corporation of America, NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc., NEC Electronics America, Inc., NEC Electronics Corporation and NEC LCD Technologies, Ltd. in 13-15929 [8810165] (BJB) [Entered: 10/04/2013 02:37 PM] |
| Filing 16 Filed order (Appellate Commissioner): The motion of appellees NEC Corporation, NEC LCD Technologies, Ltd., NEC Electronics America, Inc., NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc., Renesas Electronics America, NEC Corporation of America and NEC Electronics Corporation (collectively, the NEC Entities) to amend the caption is granted. The NEC Entities shall be removed from the caption of this case and shall be removed from the service list. Appellants opposed motion to reinstate the appeal is denied without prejudice to the filing of a renewed motion to reinstate within 21 days after the date of this order accompanied by the opening brief. See General Order 2.4, General Orders of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (a motion to reinstate is to be accompanied by correction of the defect that caused dismissal). (Pro Mo) [8810152] (BJB) [Entered: 10/04/2013 02:34 PM] |
| Filing 15 Deleted Incorrect Entry (Per Order Filed 10/18/2013) ****** COURT DELETED INCORRECT/DUPLICATE ENTRY. Notice about deletion sent to case participants registered for electronic filing. Original Text: Filed (ECF) Appellee Indirect Plaintiff Class response opposing motion (,motion to reinstate case after FRAP 42-1 dismissal,motion to extend time to file brief). Date of service: 09/30/2013. [8802259] (Clayton, Patrick) [Entered: 09/30/2013 01:29 PM] |
| Filing 14 COURT ENTERED FILING. Filed (ECF) Appellants Leveta Chesser, Johnny Kessel and Alison Paul Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 09/19/2013. [8789442] (RY) [Entered: 09/19/2013 02:22 PM] |
| Filing 13 Filed (ECF) Appellants Leveta Chesser, Johnny Kessel and Alison Paul Motion to reinstate case after FRAP 42-1 dismissal, Motion to extend time to file Opening brief until 10/04/2013. Date of service: 09/19/2013. [8789040]--[COURT UPDATE: Removed mediation questionnaire (refiled separately using correct ECF event; see [ # 14 ]). Resent NDA. 09/19/2013 by RY] (Palmer, Joseph) [Entered: 09/19/2013 11:41 AM] |
| Filing 12 Sent letter to Appellees NEC Corporation, NEC Corporation of America, NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc., NEC Electronics America, Inc., NEC Electronics Corporation, NEC LCD Technologies, Ltd. and Renesas Electronics America re: NEC Entities' motion to amend caption. [8781887] [13-15929] (AT) [Entered: 09/13/2013 02:27 PM] |
| Filing 11 Filed (ECF) Appellees NEC Corporation, NEC Corporation of America, NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc., NEC Electronics America, Inc., NEC Electronics Corporation, NEC LCD Technologies, Ltd. and Renesas Electronics America Motion for miscellaneous relief [NEC Entities' Motion to Amend Caption]. Date of service: 08/28/2013. [8760428] (Sutro, Stephen) [Entered: 08/28/2013 02:39 PM] |
| Filing 10 Terminated Sean David Unger for Epson Electronics America, Inc. in 12-16830, Epson Electronics America, Inc. in 12-16839, Epson Electronics America, Inc. in 13-15920, Epson Electronics America, Inc. in 13-15929, Epson Electronics America, Inc. in 13-15930 and Epson Electronics America, Inc. in 13-15934 [8758404] [12-16839, 12-16830, 13-15920, 13-15929, 13-15930, 13-15934] (CW) [Entered: 08/27/2013 02:21 PM] |
| Filing 9 Received Attorney Sean David Unger, Esquire for Appellee Epson Electronics America, Inc. in 12-16839, 12-16830, 13-15920, 13-15929, 13-15930, 13-15934 letter dated 08/22/2013 re: request to be removed from service. Terminated counsel. Served on 08/22/2013 [8758392] [12-16839, 12-16830, 13-15920, 13-15929, 13-15930, 13-15934] (CW) [Entered: 08/27/2013 02:18 PM] |
| Filing 8 Filed order (Deputy Clerk: MGS) Appellants have failed to comply with the courts order filed July 2, 2013. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Ninth Cir. Rule 42-1. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. A copy of this order shall serve as and for the mandate of this court. [8701322] (BJB) [Entered: 07/12/2013 11:09 AM] |
| Filing 7 Filed order MEDIATION (EPM): Appellants have failed to file a Mediation Questionnaire in accordance with the courts order of June 12, 2013. Within seven (7) days of the filing date of this order, appellants shall file a Mediation Questionnaire (available on the court's website, www.ca9.uscourts.gov) or a motion to dismiss the appeal voluntarily under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), or shall show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed. [8688873] (BJB) [Entered: 07/02/2013 10:34 AM] |
| Filing 6 Terminated Chet Alan Kronenberg for LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc. in 13-15929 [8664236] (CW) [Entered: 06/12/2013 09:15 AM] |
| Filing 5 Filed order MEDIATION (EPM): The Court of Appeals records do not indicate that appellants have filed a Mediation Questionnaire in accordance with Circuit Rule 3-4. Within seven (7) days of the filing of this order, appellants shall: (a) file a Mediation Questionnaire (available on the court's website, www.ca9.uscourts.gov); (b) dismiss the appeal voluntarily pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b); or (c) show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to Ninth Cir. R. 42-1. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal pursuant to Ninth Cir. R. 42-1. [8664159] (BJB) [Entered: 06/12/2013 08:46 AM] |
| Filing 4 Filed (ECF) Appellees LG Display America, Inc. and LG Display Co., Ltd. Correspondence: Correspondence to Clerk re: Notice of Settlement in Underlying Case. Date of service: 06/11/2013 [8663950] (Kronenberg, Chet) [Entered: 06/11/2013 04:57 PM] |
| Filing 3 Received notification from District Court re: payment of docket fee. Amount Paid: USD 455.00. Date paid: 05/14/2013. [8629556] (RT) [Entered: 05/15/2013 09:29 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: DEV): Order to show cause docket fee due. [8623150] (DEV) [Entered: 05/09/2013 01:50 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Fee due from Appellants Leveta Chesser, Johnny Kessel and Alison Paul on 04/26/2013. Mediation Questionnaire due on 05/14/2013. Transcript ordered by 05/28/2013. Transcript due 06/25/2013. Appellants Leveta Chesser, Johnny Kessel and Alison Paul opening brief due 08/05/2013. Appellees AU Optronics Corporation America, Inc., CMO Japan Co., Ltd., Chi Mei Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., Chimei Innolux Corp., Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., Epson Electronics America, Inc., Epson Imaging Devices Corporation, Hannstar Display Corporation, Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., Hitachi Ltd., Indirect Plaintiff Class, Koninklijke Philips Electronics, NV, LG Display America, Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd., Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan), Limited, Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc., NEC Corporation, NEC Corporation of America, NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc., NEC Electronics America, Inc., NEC Electronics Corporation, NEC LCD Technologies, Ltd., Nexgen Mediatech USA Inc., Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Renesas Electronics America, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung SDI America, Inc., Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Sanyo Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd., Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, Tatung Company, Tatung Company of America, Inc., Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., LTD. and Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd. answering brief due 09/03/2013. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. [8619552] (RT) [Entered: 05/07/2013 12:58 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
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.
