Free Opening Brief in Support - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 123.6 kB
Pages: 4
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 1,063 Words, 6,337 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/35202/6-2.pdf

Download Opening Brief in Support - District Court of Delaware ( 123.6 kB)


Preview Opening Brief in Support - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:05-cv-00532-JJF Document 6-2 Filed 11/11/2005 Page 1 014
|
Exhibit A

Case 1 :05-cv-00532-JJF Document 6-2 Filed 1 1/1 1/2005 Page 2 of 4
N JUDICIAL PANEL ON
MULTIDISTFIIGT LITIGATION
RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION NOV · 8 2005 ‘
DOCKET NO. I 717 cI.enEilsE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON M ULT IDISTRI CT Ll TIGA TI ON
IN RE INTEL C ORP. MI CROPROCESSOR AN TTIR UST LI TZIGA TI ON I
BEFORE WIIL T ERRELL H ODGES, C JOHN F. KEENANQ D.
LOWELL JENSEN .L FREDERICK M OTZ, ROBERT L. MILLER, JR.,
ICATZHRYN IL VRATIL AND DA VID R. HANSEN JUDGES OF THE
PANEL -
I TRANSFER ORDER I
This litigation- currently consists of fourteen actions listed on the attached Schedule A and
pending intwo districts as follows: ten actions inthe Northen1·District of Califomia and four actions
in the District of Delaware} Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiffs in one Northern District of
California action oiiginally moved for centralization of this docket in their California district, but
they now favor selection of the District of Delaware as transferee forum. Plaintiff in one of the
Delaware actions, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD), has stated that it does not object to
centralization in the District of D elaware, so long as the Panel orders that Alv[D’ s action be allowed
to proceed on a separate track within the Section 1407 proceedings. All other responding parties,
(i.e, plaintiffs in eight of the nine remaining California actions, the plaintiffs in the three remaining
Delaware actions, common defendant Intel Corp ,, and plaintiffs invarious District of Delaware and
Northern and Southern District of California potential tag—along actions) support centralization
without qualification. With but one exception, all of these additional respondents also support
designation of the District of Delaware as transferee forum. The lone dissenter on this point is the
plaintiff in a Southern District of California potential tag-along action, who favors centralization in
his California district.
On the basis ofthe papers tiled and hearing session held, the Panel Ends that the actions in
this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the
District of Delaware will serve the convenience ofthe parties andwitnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct ofthe litigation. All actions involve allegations that common defendant Intel Corp.
monopolized and unlawfully maintained amonopoly in the market for the microprocessing chips that
` serve as the "brains" of most modem computers. Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in
order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (especially with respect

'The Panel has been notified of additional related actions recently Eled in the Northern and Southern
Districts of California, the District of Delaware, the Southern District of Florida, and the Eastern and
Westem Districts of Tennessee. In light ofthe Panel's disposition of this docket, these actions will be treated
as potential tag-along actions. See Rules 7.4 and 7.5, RP.J.P.M.L., 199 FILD. 425, 435-36 (2001).
l
l

Case 1 :05-cv-00532-JJ F Document 6-2 Filed 1 1/1 1/2005 Page 3 of 4
l . - 2 · I;
to class certification matters), and conserve theresources ofthe parties, their counsel and the judiciary. I
Transfer under Section 1407 will have the salutary effect of placing all actions in this docket before — '
a single judge who can formulate apretrial program that; i) allows discoverywith respect to any non- B
common issues to proceed concurrently with discovery on common issues, In re Joseph F. Smith
Patent Litigation, 407 F.Supp. 1403, 1404 (I.P.M.L. 1976); and ii) ensures that pretrial proceedings
will be conducted in a manner leading to a just and expeditious resolution of the actions to the `
benet of not just some but all of the litigation’s parties. We decline to grant Al\/[D’s request to ‘
issue specinc instructions that could limit the discretion of the transferee court to structure this
litigation as it sees {it. As Section 1407 proceedings evolve inthe transferee district, AMD may wish 7
to renew its argtunent that the nature of its claims and! or its status as a litigant would warrant
separate tracking for its action within the centralized l\/IDL·l7l7 proceedings. That argument is one
to be addressed to the transferee court, however, and not to the Panel. \
In concluding that the District of Delaware is an appropriate forum for this docket, we 4 I
observe that i) the district is an accessible location that is geographically convenient for many ofthis ;
docket’ s litigants and counsel; ii) the district is well equipped with the resources that this complex
antitrust docket is likely tc require; md iii) the district is the near unanimous choice of all responding Q
parties. `
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on
Schedule A and pending outside the District ofDelaware me transferred to that district and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr., for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the actions pending there and listed on Schedule A.
FOR THE PANEL:
Wm. Terrell Hodges
Chairman

C · - - .
ase 1 .05 cv 00532-JJF Document 6-2 Fnled 11/1 1/2005 Page 4 gf 4
SCHEDULE A l
MDL-1717 -- In re I11tc1 Com. Microprocessor Antitmst Litigation , _
glortlnern District of Califcgia
David E. Lyman, et al. v. Intel Cmp., C.A. No. 3:05-2669
· Maria L Prohias v. Intel Cmp., C.A. No. 3:05-2699
Ronald Konieczka v. Intel Cmp., C.A. N0. 3:05-2700
Patricia M Niehaus v. Intel Carp., C.A. No. 3:05-2720 ‘
Steve J Hamilton v. Intel Cmp., C.A. N0. 3:05-2721
Michael Branch, etal. v. Intel Cmp., C.A.No. 3:05-2743 - · .
Susan Bexley v. Intel Cmp., C.A. N0. 3:05-2758 - _ ,
. Huston Frazier, et al. v. Intel Cmp., C.A. N0. 3:05-2813
Dwight E. Dickerson v. Intel Cmp., C.A. No. 3:05-2818
The Harman Press v. Intel Cmp., C.A. No. 3:05-2823 p
.- . .... _______, , _ _
Advanced Mcra Devices, Inc., ez al. v. Intel Cmp., et al., C.A. No. 1:05-441 l
Jim Kidwell, etal. v. Intel Cmp., C.A. N0. 1:05-470
Robert J Rainwater, etal. v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 1:05-473 -
Matthew Kravitz, et al. v. Intel Cmp., C.A. No. 1:05-476