Free Motion to Shorten Time - District Court of California - California


File Size: 153.9 kB
Pages: 3
Date: June 20, 2007
File Format: PDF
State: California
Category: District Court of California
Author: unknown
Word Count: 806 Words, 4,977 Characters
Page Size: 792 x 612 pts (letter)
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cand/192794/8.pdf

Download Motion to Shorten Time - District Court of California ( 153.9 kB)


Preview Motion to Shorten Time - District Court of California
Case 3:07—cv—02933-SI Document 8 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 3
l
LINGEL H. WINTERS, ESQ. (SBN 37759)
2 LAW OFFICES OF LINGEL H. WINTERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
3 One Maritime Plaza, Suite 400
1 San Francisco, CA 94111
4 Telephone: (415) 398-2941 _
5 Facsimile: (415) 393-9887 ‘
GIRARDI & KEESE ‘
6 THOMAS V. GIRARDI (SBN 36603)
1126 Wilshire Blvd.
7 Los Angeles, CA 90017-1904
8 Telephone (213) 977-0211
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class I
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 1
12 A
13 MDL N0. M:07-cv-01827 SI
· IN RE TFT-LCD (FLAT
14 PANEL)ANTITRUST LITIGATION Case N0. C-07-cv-2796 SI
15 _ CLASS ACTION
16 EMI/I/Q Inc. v. LG Philqvs LCD CO., LTD et al. MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING
Case No. C-07-2796 SI TIME
17 .
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO Date: July 10, 2007
18 Time: 10:00 a.m.
ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS
19 Hon. Susan Illston
» Courtroom: 10 . _
20 V l 1
21
22
23 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3, plaintiff and moving party EMW, Inc. moves the Court for an
24 order shortening time to hear plaintiff’ s Motion To Appoint Interim Class Counsel For the
25 California Indirect Purchasers Subgroup.
26 On June 4, 2007, plaintiff EMW, Inc. filed its Reply Memorandum Indirect Purchaser
27 Leadership Proposal of Lingel H. Winters P.C. in the belief that the hearing on various class
A 28 »
MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTING TIME

Case 3:07—cv—02933-SI Document 8 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 3
I motions was firmly set for June 8, 2007 and that there was no further time in which to take
2 action. On June 5, 2007, the Court continued the motions to July 10, 2007. With this
3 continuance in hand, plaintiff undertook to engage co-counsel to join in filing its Motion To
2 Appoint Interim Class Counsel For the California Indirect Purchasers Subgroup. On June 18,
6 Thomas V. Girardi of Girardi & Keese agreed to join as co-counsel and plaintiff set about
7 finalizing said Motion. It is believed that said Motion will simplify the case and increase the
8 manageability and judicial economy for the case, and that therefore, it is in the interest of all ‘
9 parties and the Court for said Motion to be heard on July 10, 2007.
10 Substantial harm or prejudice will occur if the time for hearing the motion is not shortened in
11 -
several regards:
12 p
13 1) The Court and putative classes will be deprived of the appropriate competition among I
14 law firms for service to them.
15 2) The manag_eability of the indirect purchasers action may be adversely affected by
16 consolidated representation of claimants claiming under the laws of 20-30 different
17 states. The Motion contends that manageability and commonality can only be achieved I
V 18 by subgrouping the various claims.
19 Some counsel claim that claimants claiming under the differing laws of 20-30 states may
33 be represented byione consolidated group of attorneys. Plaintiff contends that such
- 22 representation could undermine commonality and predominance and lead to conflicts.
23 Plaintiff contends that there is a natural subgrouping that arises from the complaint in
24 Eliasoph v. LG Philips C0, Ltd et al., breaks the claimants down into three natural groups:
25 1) Subgroup One: California Claims (Eliasoph Second, Third Claims)
A 26 2) SubGroup Two: Claims under Other Repealer States with laws
ig involving "Violations of State Antitrust and Unfair Competition
MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTING TIME

Case 3:07—cv—02933-SI Document 8 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 3 of 3
l Laws" — Eliasoph Fourth Claim)
2 3) Subgroup Three: Claims under State laws claimed as "Violations of
l 3 State Consumer Protection and Unfair Competition Laws — El iasoph
Z Fifth Claim.
6 In such cases as Walsh v. Ford Motor Co. (D.C. Cir. 1986) 807 F.2d 1000, 1017 and In Re
7 School Asbestos Litigation 789 F.2d 996 (3"1 Cir. 1986), the Courts concluded various and
A 8 differing state claims may satisfy the predominance and commonality requirement where
~ 9 subgrouping of such State claims in employed.
10 The Motion also contends that such subgrouping minimizes conflicts. -
` 11 Since multiple parties are involved in this complex- action, the best notice is by ECF and it
E would be impractical to seek stipulation. Q
14 WHEFORE plaintiff prays for an Order Shortening Time for plaintiffs Motion to Appoint
15 Interim Class Counsel For the California Indirect Purchasers Subgroup. _ _
I 16 .
ll Dated: June 2007 LAW OFFICES OF LINGEL H. WINTERS
18 A Pnorassio AL CORPORATION
19 i t__/.» 6/ g , .._.
21 Lingel H. ters
22 ’ A
' 23
24
25 .
26 M
27 I
I 28
I 3
Morton ron onmzn snonrmc rnvns

Case 3:07-cv-02933-SI

Document 8

Filed 06/21/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 3:07-cv-02933-SI

Document 8

Filed 06/21/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 3:07-cv-02933-SI

Document 8

Filed 06/21/2007

Page 3 of 3