UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
» JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
CHAIRMAN: MEMBERS; iii C; .. T if in f iijuuzcr REPLY ro;
Judge wm. reeeu Hodges Judge D. Lowell JCJISBH J¤
Middle District of Florida Northern DlS11‘1Ct of California D1¤i=¤¤f °fK“¤5E—'* M., . . . -4 ;e}C1crl?ftl1e Panel
Judge J. Frederick Metz {§¤ri§gd%i;{gsI}ig1u;¤?§g¤APpg;]S 2 M "i’?1iri;ggd`dIxi/i;tSs§eli?i?éii;:1Et1
Bi§e“?££.‘?‘°e`?e?,ll?.“3" °°““ Eighth CMM _ . ._ - . 55.8;,,
_ i-`-. i ., HS1HOl'l,..
. fittts A Ai A PAAAA Z aa taaa
http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov
May 14, 2007
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
Phillip Burton U.S. Courthouse
Box 36060
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3489
Re: MDL-1826 -- In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litigation A
(See Attached CTO-1)
Dear Mr. Wieking:
I am enclosing a certified copy and one additional copy of a conditional transfer order filed by the Panel
i.n the above-captioned matter on April 26. 2007. As stipulated i.n Rule 7.4(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001), transmittal ofthe order has been stayed
15 days to give any party an opportunity to oppose the transfer. The 15 -day period has now elapsed, no
opposition was received, and the order is directed to you for filing.
The Panel's governing statute, 28 U.S.C. §1407, requires that the transferee clerk "...transmit a certified
copy of the Panelâ€s order to transfer to the clerk of the district court from which the action is being transferred."
A list of involved counsel is attached.
Very truly,
Jerreeewe . at ..aA/t e.
A I A... ‘A .. ae
_r‘` A " ji Mecca . h mpson
__ , " H} Deputy lerk
an ` ... ,*' ~- A· I
Attachment j `
cc: Transferee Judge: Judge Charles R. Breyer
Transferor Judges: (See Attached List of Judges) _
Transferor Clerks: (See Attached List of Clerks)
J PML Fonn 36
._ Case 3:07—cv—03064-WHA Document 1-12 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 2 of 3 .
·=. Et. 0%
a,§4§l§It‘t§Itrt·trt—rrat
ata t t int
FILEE
m§nI€'&0F?I@§ . .
DOCKET NO. 1826
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ONMULTIDISTRICTLITIGA TION
INRE GRAPHICS PROCESSING UNITS ANTITRUSTLITIGATION
(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)
CONDI T I ONAL TRANSFER ORDER (C T O-1)
On April 18, 2007, the Panel transferred one civil action to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See _F.Supp.2d_ (J .P.M.L. 2007). With the consent of that cotut, all such
actions have been assigned to the Honorable William H. Alsup.
lt appears that the actions on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are
common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of California and assigned
to Judge Alsup.
Pursuant to Rule 7.4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, -
199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001), these actions are transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to the
Northern District of California for the reasons stated in the order of April 18, 2007, and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable William H. Alsup.
This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Ur1ited
States District Court for the Northern District of California. The transmittal of this order to said
Clerk shall be stayed 15 days from the entry thereof. lf any party tiles a notice of opposition with
the Clerk of the Panel within this 15-day period, the stay will be continued until further order of
‘ the Panel.
FOR THE PANEL:
lnas uch as no ¤bi@¤I£i0¤ is ,_ ’
sndlft Bl {NS TIITIB. TIIB _ _ · A _ ` -
gray is lifted. ' r"'*"‘*‘€·(·,i“' —."` ‘
. A-..,7.. _. tbl
F l Cle f .." Panel
A RIA? I 4 20uJ
CLEFtK’S OFFICE I
JUDICIAL PANEL ON
. MULTIDISTFIICT LITIGATION
=-·
: ’ SCHEDULE CTO-1 - TAG-ALONG ACTIONS
DOCKET NO. 1826
IN RE GRAPHICS PROCESSING UNITS ANT ITRUST LITIGATION
DIST. DIV. C.A. # CASE CAPTION .
ARKANSAS EASTERN
ARE 4 07-214 Robert S. Harmon v. Nvidia Corp., et al.
CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
CAC 2 06-7954 Woodrow Clark v. Nvidia Corp., et al.
CAC 2 06-7964 Jennifer Tomaino v. Nvidia Corp., etal.
CAC 2 06-SI 17 Alan Holtzman v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.
CAC 2 06-8183 Paul Smith v. Nvidia Corp., et al. .
CAC 2 07-192 Chad Klebs v. Nvidia Corp., et al.
CAC 2 07-737 Yury Furman v. Nvidia Corp., et al.
CAC 2 07-919 Joseph Peirano v. Nvidia Corp., et al.
CAC 2 07-1927 Thomas Y. Huh v. Nvidia Corp., etal.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBLA
DC 1 07-439 Rebecca Bly v. Nvidia Corp., et al.
KANSAS
KS 2 07-2067 Scott Redpath v. Nvidia Corp., et al.
KS 2 07-2106 Kou Srimoungchanh v. Nvidia Corp., et al.
MASSACHUSETTS
MA 1 06-12286 James Matson v. Nvidia Corp., et al.
MA 1 07-10300 Stephanie Lueckel v. Nvidia Corp., et a1.
NEW YORK EASTERN
NYE 1 07-1016 Zhi Yuan Chiu v. Nvidia Corp., et a1.
SOUTH CAROLINA
SC 2 07-822 Julie Cook v. Nvidia Corp., et al.
SC 3 07-424 Lee R. Chamberlain v. Nvidia Corp., et al.
SOUTH DAKOTA
SD 5 07-5019 Christopher C. Crawford v. Nvidia Corp., et al.
TENNESSEE EASTERN
TNE 2 07-50 Tabbatha Benson, et al. v. Nvidia Corp., et al.
VERMONT
VT 2 07-32 Allen Nassiff v. Nvidia Corp., et al.
WISCONSIN WESTERN
WIW 3 06-755 Scott Martin v. Nvidia Corp., et al.
Case 3:07-cv-03064-WHA
Document 1-12
Filed 06/13/2007
Page 1 of 3
Case 3:07-cv-03064-WHA
Document 1-12
Filed 06/13/2007
Page 2 of 3
Case 3:07-cv-03064-WHA
Document 1-12
Filed 06/13/2007
Page 3 of 3
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms