Free Remark - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00773-JJF Document 39-14 Case 3:05-cv-02669-MHP Document 30

Filed 09/27/2005 Page 11 of 3 Filed 01/12/2006 Page of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP DAVID M. BALABANIAN (SBN 37368) CHRISTOPHER B. HOCKETT (SBN 121539) JOY K. FUYUNO (SBN 193890) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111-4067 Telephone: (415) 393-2000 Attorneys for Defendant Intel Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID E. LIPTON and DANA F. THIBEDEAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant.

No. 05-2669 MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12(b), Defendant Intel Corporation ("Intel") hereby notifies the Court and all counsel of its belief that Karol Juskiewicz et al v. Intel Corp., No. C-05-3094 (BZ) (filed July 29, 2005) ("Juskiewicz") is a "related case" to the abovecaptioned case within the meaning of Civil L.R. 3-12(a). This administrative motion is made on the grounds that plaintiffs in Juskiewicz and in the above-captioned case filed substantially similar class action complaints against the same defendant (Intel) and allege essentially the same antitrust conduct. Twenty-one class action complaints alleging similar conduct against Intel have already been found by this Court to be related to the above-captioned case. See Related Cases Orders, signed July 27, 2005, and August

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

Case 1:05-cv-00773-JJF Document 39-14 Case 3:05-cv-02669-MHP Document 30

Filed 09/27/2005 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

12, 2005. Relating this case pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12 will advance the convenience of the parties, witnesses and counsel, will avoid the risk of duplicative or inconsistent rulings, orders, and judgments and will serve the interests of justice. Accordingly, Intel respectfully submits that the assignment of this action to a single judge will conserve judicial resources and promote an efficient determination of the actions. A proposed order accompanies this motion. DATED: September 22, 2005 BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP

By:

/s/ Joy K. Fuyuno Joy K. Fuyuno Attorneys for Defendant Intel Corporation

DATED: September 26, 2005 TRUMP, ALIOTO, TRUMP & PRESCOTT

By:

/s/ Mario N. Alioto Mario N. Alioto Attorneys for Plaintiff Karol Juskiewicz

2
MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

Case 1:05-cv-00773-JJF Document 39-14 Case 3:05-cv-02669-MHP Document 30

Filed 09/27/2005 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

[PROPOSED] RELATED CASE ORDER A Motion for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related (Civil L.R. 3-12) has been filed. As the judge assigned to the above-captioned case, I find that the more recently filed case(s) that I have initialed below are related to the case assigned to me, and such case(s) shall be reassigned to me. Any cases listed below that are not related to the case assigned to me are referred to the judge assigned to the next-earliest filed case for a related case determination. C-05-3094 BZ Karol Juskiewicz et al v. Intel Corporation I find that the above case is related to the case assigned to me.___________

[PROPOSED] ORDER Counsel are instructed that all future filings in any reassigned case are to bear the initials of the newly assigned judge immediately after the case number. Any case management conference in any reassigned case will be rescheduled by the Court. The parties shall adjust the dates for the conference, disclosures and report required by FRCivP 16 and 26 accordingly. Unless otherwise ordered, any dates for hearing noticed motions are vacated and must be renoticed by the moving party before the newly assigned judge; any deadlines set by the ADR Local Rules remain in effect; and any deadlines established in a case management order continue to govern, except dates for appearance in court, which will be rescheduled by the newly assigned judge. DATED: ______________, 2005 ___________________________________ Honorable Marilyn H. Patel

3
MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED