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


File Size: 100.9 kB
Pages: 3
Date: July 13, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 722 Words, 4,432 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/35983/45-9.pdf

Download Case Transferred In - District Transfer - District Court of Delaware ( 100.9 kB)


Preview Case Transferred In - District Transfer - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:05-cv-00778-JJF Document 45-9 Case 3:05-cv-02743-MHP Document 7

Filed 07/13/2005 Page 11 of 3 Filed 01/12/2006 Page of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

FREDERICK P. FURTH (No. 38438) MICHAEL P. LEHMANN (No. 77152) THOMAS P. DOVE (No. 51921) ALEX C. TURAN (No. 227273) THE FURTH FIRM LLP 225 Bush Street, 15th Floor San Francisco, California 94104-4249 Telephone: (415) 433-2070 Facsimile: (415) 982-2076 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Additional Counsel are listed on Signature Page) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION MICHAEL BRAUCH, a resident of San Francisco, and ANDREW MEIMES, a resident of New York, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, vs. Plaintiffs, ) CASE NO. C:05-2743 BZ ) ) NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ) ACTION OR PROCEEDING ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

INTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant.

56720.1

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTION OR PROCEEDING

Case 1:05-cv-00778-JJF Document 45-9 Case 3:05-cv-02743-MHP Document 7

Filed 07/13/2005 Page 22 of 3 Filed 01/12/2006 Page of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

Pursuant to Civ. Local Rule 3-13, plaintiffs Michael Brauch and Andrew Meimes ("Plaintiffs") identify the following cases in which substantially similar antitrust law violations are alleged to have occurred due to Intel Corporation's ("Intel") use of its substantial market power to unlawfully maintain its monopoly by engaging in a relentless campaign to coerce customers to refrain from dealing with Advanced Micro Devices, which resulted in customers paying higher prices for x86 microprocessors and left them with fewer buying choices for such microprocessors. Each of the following cases therefore relates to the general subject matter alleged in this action.1 1. Phil Paul v. Intel Corp., No. 1:05-cv-00485, filed in the United States District Court for the District if Delware on July 12, 2005. This action has not been assigned to a judge as of the date of this filing. 2. Michael Ruccolo v. Intel Corp., No. 1:05-cv-00478, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on July 8, 2005. This action has not been assigned to a judge as of the date of this filing. 3. Lazio Family Products v. Intel Corp., No. C:05-2859, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 13, 2005 and assigned to Judge William Alsup. On July 11, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, requesting that all pending and subsequently filed actions in this and other district courts be transferred and coordinated or consolidated in the Northern District of California for pretrial proceedings. A copy of that motion was lodged with the clerk of court on July 11, 2005. The Plaintiffs believe that coordination of the foregoing cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 (Multi-District Litigation

Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Pendency of Other Action or Proceeding with this Court on July 12, 2005 listing seventeen then-pending actions. Four of those actions have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, thirteen were filed in the Northern District of California.
-2NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTION OR PROCEEDING
56720.1

Case 1:05-cv-00778-JJF Document 45-9 Case 3:05-cv-02743-MHP Document 7

Filed 07/13/2005 Page 33 of 3 Filed 01/12/2006 Page of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Procedures) will avoid conflicts, conserve resources and promote an efficient determination of the action. Dated: July 13, 2005 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Alex C. Turan Michael P. Lehmann Thomas P. Dove Alex C. Turan The Furth Firm, LLP 225 Bush Street, 15th Floor San Francisco, California 94104-4249 Telephone: (415) 433-2070 Facsimile: (415) 982-2076 Francis O. Scarpulla (41059) Law Offices Of Francis O. Scarpulla 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 788-7210 Facsimile: (415) 788-0707 Craig C. Corbitt (83251) Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 693-0700 Facsimile: (415) 693-0770 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Michael Brauch and Andrew Meimes

-3NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTION OR PROCEEDING
56720.1