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

Case 1:05-cv-00773-JJF Document 38-18 Case 3:05-cv-02669-MHP Document 16

Filed 07/21/2005 Page 11 of 4 Filed 01/12/2006 Page of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 S CHUBERT & R EED LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1660 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 788-4220

ROBERT C. SCHUBERT S.B.N. 62684 JUDEN JUSTICE REED S.B.N. 153748 PETER E. BORKON S.B.N. 212596 SCHUBERT & REED LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1660 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Fax: (415) 788-0161 Attorneys for the Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DAVID E. LIPTON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,

Case No. 3:05-2669-MHP

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED [Civil L.R. 3-12]

Defendant.

This Administrative Motion Relates to: Patrick Hewson v. Intel Corporation
Case No. 3:05-02916-SC

Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related

Case 1:05-cv-00773-JJF Document 38-18 Case 3:05-cv-02669-MHP Document 16

Filed 07/21/2005 Page 22 of 4 Filed 01/12/2006 Page of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 S CHUBERT & R EED LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1660 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 788-4220

INTRODUCTION This motion is filed by plaintiff Patrick J. Hewson ("Plaintiff") seeking an order relating the action Hewson v. Intel Corporation ("Hewson"), Case No. 05-2916- SC to the above-captioned case, Lipton, et al., v. Intel Corporation ("Lipton"), Case No. 05-2669-MHP. These cases are related because they both allege violations of the antitrust laws against Intel and its co-conspirators in connection with the market for x86 microrpocessors. Plaintiff also believes that his action is related to several other cases files in this Court as listed below. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff respectfully requests that his motion be granted and his action be related to Lipton. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Lipton v. Intel, was filed on June 29, 2005 and names as a defendant, Intel Corporation. Hewson v. Intel was filed on July 18, 2005 and also names Intel as a defendant. A copy of the complaint in Hewson is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Peter E. Borkon In Support of Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related ("the Borkon Declaration"), filed herewith. Plaintiff believes that the following actions allege substantially similar claims:

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Case Name Lipton et al v. Intel Corporation Prohias v. Intel Corporation Konieczka, et al v. Intel Corporation

Case Number 3:05-cv-02669-MHP 3:05-cv-02699-JL 3:05-cv-02700-MHP 3:05-cv-02720-JCS 3:05-cv-02721-JCS 3:05-cv-02743-SC 3:05-cv-02813-JL 3:05-cv-02834-MHP 3:05-cv-02858-EDL

Date Filed 06/29/2005 06/30/2005 06/30/2005 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 07/05/2005 07/11/2005 07/12/2005 07/13/2005

Judge Patel Larson Patel Spero Spero Conti Larson Patel Laporte

22 Niehaus v. Intel Corporation 23 Hamilton v. Intel Corporation 24 25 26 27 28 Brauch et al v. Intel Corporation Frazier et al v. Intel Corporation Allanoff v. Intel Corporation Law Offices of Laurel Stanley et al

Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related

Page 1

Case 1:05-cv-00773-JJF Document 38-18 Case 3:05-cv-02669-MHP Document 16

Filed 07/21/2005 Page 33 of 4 Filed 01/12/2006 Page of 4

1 v. Intel Corporation 2 Lazio Family Products, v. Intel 3 Corporation 4 Hewson v. Intel Corporation 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 S CHUBERT & R EED LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1660 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 788-4220

3:05-cv-02859-WHA

07/13/2005

Alsup

3:05-cv-02916-SC ARGUMENT

07/18/2005

Conti

Pursuant to Local Rule 3-12, an action is related to another when: (1) the actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and (2) it appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different judges. Lipton and Hewson meet these standards.1 First, the complaints both allege substantially similar violations of antitrust laws against the same Defendant, Intel. Specifically, each complaint alleges Intel and its subsidiaries, agents or coconspirators sold x86 microprocessors and entered into and implemented a continuing combination and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices for x86 microprocessors sold in the United States. The complaints further allege that because of Intel's unlawful conduct, plaintiffs and members of a class of indirect purchasers paid artificially inflated prices for x86 microprocessors and have been damaged thereby. Second, each complaint names the same Defendant, Intel. Third, each action asserts the same or substantially similar claims on behalf of consumers who purchased computers that contain Intel x86 microprocessors. Finally, plaintiffs in both actions seek to represent comparable nationwide classes of indirect purchasers of x86 microprocessors. Based upon these similarities, its appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or potentially conflicting results if these cases proceed before different judges. An order relating these cases under Civil Local Rule 3-12 is therefore appropriate.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

1

28

Plaintiffs in Allanoff v. Intel Corp., Case No. 05-2834 (MMC); Lazio Family Products v. Intel Corp., Case No. 052859 (WHA), Stanley, et al., v. Intel Corp., Case No. 05-2858 (EDL) filed a similar motion on July 14, 2005. Plaintiff in Brauch v. Intel Corp., Case No. 05-2743 (BZ) also filed a similar motion on July 7, 2005.

Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related

Page 2

Case 1:05-cv-00773-JJF Document 38-18 Case 3:05-cv-02669-MHP Document 16

Filed 07/21/2005 Page 44 of 4 Filed 01/12/2006 Page of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 S CHUBERT & R EED LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1660 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 788-4220

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant his motion and relate the cases set forth above. DATED: July 18, 2004

By:__/s/________________________ Peter E. Borkon ROBERT C. SCHUBERT JUDEN JUSTICE REED PETER E. BORKON SCHUBERT & REED LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1660 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related

Page 3