Free Case Transferred In - District Transfer - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case B:05—cv F|P DBc::1¤m11er¤§nt8—59 Hilledl 01I/118//2005 Page 11 01f 2
BINGHAM McCUTCH EN
Joy K. F uyuno
Direct Phone: (415) 393-2386
[email protected]
November 17, 2005
Via E-Filing
The Honorable Marilyn H. Patel
United States District Court, Northem District of California
B‘“9**¤"· M°C¤’¤**€¤ UP 450 Golden Gate Avenue
Three Embcrcodero Center Courtroom 15, 18m Floor
$¤¤ Ft¤¤¤1¤¤<>r CA San Francisco, CA 94102
941 1 l-4067
Re: (1) Lqrton v. Intel Corp., N0.C-05-2669-MHP; (2) Prohias v. Intel
41s.;a<>s.2<>co Corp., N0. C-05-2699—MHP; (3) Konieczka v. Intel Corp., No.
415.393.22Bo tex C-05-2700-MHP; (4) Niehaus v. Intel Corp., N0. C-05-2720-MHP;
(5) Hamilton v. Intel Corp., N0. C-05-2721-MHP; (6) Brauch v.
tsanghemeem Intel Corp., N0. C—05—2743—MHP; (7) Baxley v. Intel Corp., N0.
C-05-2758-MHP; (8) Frazier v. Intel Corp., No. C-05-2813-MHP;
Boston (9) Dickerson v. Intel Corp., N0. C-05-2818-MHP; (10) The Harman
Hentere Press v. Intel Corp., N0. C-05-2823-MHP; (11) Shanghai 1930
reneee Restaurant v. Intel Corp., N0. C—05-2830-MHP; (12) Benjamin
ree Angeles Allanojf v. Intel Corp., N0. C-05-2834-MHP; (13) Major League
New York Sohball, Inc. v. Intel Corp., N0. C-05-2831-MH]’; (14) Lazio Family
Oronge County Products v. Intel Corp., N0. C-05-2859-MHP; (15) Law Ojfices Laurel
50,, F,G,,Cm, Stanley & Wm. Cronin v. Intel Corp., N0. C-05-2858-MHP; (16)
Silicon veney Walker v. Intel Corp.,N0. C-05-2882-MHP; (17) Naigow v. Intel Corp.,
Tokyo N0. C-05-2898-MHP; (18) Stoltz v. Intel Corp., N0. C-05-2897-MHP;
wennui Creek (19) Hewson v. Intel Corp., N0. C-05-2916-MHP; (20) Lang v. Intel
Wqshmgm Corp., N0. C-05-2957-MHP; (21) T rotter-Vogel Realty, Inc. d/b/a
Prudential Calyornia Realty v. Intel Corp., N0. C-05-3028—MH1’;
(22) Juskiewicz v. Intel Corp., N0. C-05-3094-MHP; (23) Uwakwe,
d/b/a/ Tom Cyp Computers v. Intel Corp., N0. C-05-3197—MHP;
(24) Juan v. Intel Corp., N0. C-05-3271-MHP; (25) Dressed to Kill
Draperies, LLC} v. Intel Corp., N0. C-05-3272-MHP; (26) Kinder v.
Intel Corp., N0. C-05-3273—MH1’; (27) Rush v. Intel Corp., N0.
C-05-3277-MHP
Dear Judge Patel:
Per the stipulations and orders entered in the above captioned cases,] I am writing to
notify the Court of the MDL transfer order entered November 8, 2005, a copy of which is
I Orders were entered in most of the cases staying all dates and requiring notification to
the Court of entry of the MDL decision. Stipulations staying all dates pending the MDL
decision were filed in all cases except one (Dickerson), in which the parties agreed to the
terms of the stipulation but which was not yet signed when the MDL decision issued.

Case B:05—cv F|P DBc::1¤m1er¤i11t8-543 Hilledl 01Il11B’/2005 Page 2 oil 2
Hon. Marilyn H. Patel
November 17, 2005
Page 2
attached. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has ordered that the following 10
actions originally filed in the Northern District of California against Intel Corporation be
centralized under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the District of Delaware as MDL 1717 (In re Intel
Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litigation):
(1) Lipton v. Intel Corp., No.C-05-2669-MHP; (2) Prohias v. Intel Corp., No.
C-05-2699-MHP; (3) Konieczka v. Intel Corp., No. C-05-2700—MHP; (4) Niehaus v.
Bingham Mccmchen up Intel Corp., No. C-05-2720-MHP; (5) Hamilton v. Intel Corp., No. C-05-2721-MHP;
bmghqmmm (6) Brauch v. Intel Corp., No. C-05-2743-MHP; (7) Baxley v. Intel Corp., No.
C-05-2758-MHP; (8) Frazier v. Intel Corp., No. C-05-2813-MHP; (9) Dickerson v. Intel
Corp., No. C-05-2818-MHP; and (10) The Harman Press v. Intel Corp., No.
C-05-2823-MHP.
Tagalong notices have been filed for the following other 17 Northern District of
California actions against Intel, for which conditional transfer orders should be issued
soon:
(1) Shanghai 1930 Restaurant v. Intel Corp., No. C-05 2830-MHP; (2) Benjamin Allanof
v. Intel Corp., No. C-05-2834—MHP; (3) Major League Sofball, Inc. v. Intel Corp.,
No.C-05-2831—MHP; (4) Lazio Family Products v. Intel Corp., No. C-05-2859-MHP;
(5) Law Ojices Laurel Stanley & Wm. Cronin v. Intel Corp., No. C-05-2858-MHP;
(6) Walker v. Intel Corp., No. C-05-2882-MHP; (7) Naigow v. Intel Corp., No.
C-05-2898-MHP; (8) Stoltz v. Intel Corp., No. C-05-2897-MHP; (9) Hewson v. Intel
Corp., No. C-05 -2916-MHP; (10) Lang v. Intel Corp., No. C-05-2957—MHP;
(11) Trotter- Vogel Realty, Inc. d/b/a Prudential Caly’ornia Realty v. Intel Corp., No.
C-05-3028-MHP; (12) Juskiewicz v. Intel Corp., No. C-05-3094-MHP; (13) Uwakwe,
d/b/a/ Tom Cyp Computers v. Intel Corp., No. C-05-3197-MHP; (14) Juan v. Intel Corp.,
No. C-05-3271-MHP; (15) Dressed to Kill Draperies, LLC, v. Intel Corp., No.
C-05-3272-MHP; (16) Kinder v. Intel Corp., No. C—05—3273-MHP; (17) Rush v. Intel
Corp., No. C-05-3277-MHP.
It is our understanding that the plaintiffs in these tagalong actions will not contest the
conditional transfer orders.
Respectfully submitted,
[
R,. " '.
6
J oy K. Fuyuno
Counsel for Intel Corporation
Attachment