a a i 2
gi . '
UNITED STATES DlSTR]CT COURT- p _
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ` "` I
MIAMI DIVISION ZEUE HOV — It Fil 3= 27
CASE NO.; G5-22262-Cl‘vÂ¥ MARTINEZ/BAI‘=é'tt}§§T_;‘â€{i·&l-- I - _ _,:
., anx _-‘~: ·. .·-
5.0. OV ?t.—rtt.= =-=;
NATHANIEL SCHWARTZ,
individually and on behalf of all others
M aaaaaame
Plalnui`i`S’ 1. 4C'F 3l§§·!YF»Té' .I...n.;.. ,. .4 . · Y: ,
E __rE
v. ,`
Ru `
INTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware P ge = _
Co eration ` Y i ?
Defendant.
AGREED MOTION TO STAY ACTION
AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
Plaintiff NATHANIEL SCHWARTZ and Defendant INTEL CORPORATION
respectfully request that this Court stay the above—stylecl action upon the following
grounds:
I. Plaintiff filed this action on or about August 16, 2005. This action is one
of 72 related purported class actions ("Related Actions") filed in, or removed to, multiple
federal courts against Intel over the last four months}
2. On July 14, 2005, the plaintiffin Branch et al. v. Intel Corp., No., 3:05-cv~
02743 (MP) (N.D. Cal.), one of these Related Actions, petitioned the Judicial Panel on
I See Declaration of Gregory F. Wells ("Wells Declaration"), tiled concurrently
with this Motion, '|l 3 and Tab A, List of Related Actions. Each of these related actions is
an indirect purchaser complaint based on the action brought by AMD against Intel in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware in June 2005. Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corporation, 1:05-cv-00441-UF (D. Del.)
:.tt.·tttsitzs.z
DCDCCS/635381.1 k
Case 1 :05-cv-00912-JJF Document 13-10 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 2 of 4
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to have the Related Actions consolidated for pretrial
purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, as part of MDL 1717, In re Intel Microprocessor
Antitrust Litigation., On September 16, 2005, intel identified this action as a tag-along
action to be included in the MDL.} The IPML heard arguments on the transfer petition
on September 29, 2005.4 Based on recent experience, the JPML should decide the MDL
Petition shortly.} Indeed, within the past week the JPML has decided two of the other
MDL petitions that it considered during its September 29, 2005 session.
4. As part of the inherent power to control its docket, this Court has
discretion to stay proceedings pending before it. Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, B. K v.
Consorcia Barr S.A., 377 F.3d 1164, 1172 &. n.7 (11th Cir. 2004); Lisa, S.A. v. Moyorgo,
232 F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1326-27 (S.D. Fla. 2002). A stay would both advance judicial
economy and conserve resources. The Parties desire to have this action proceed in
parallel with the other Related Actions, and a stay is the most efficient vehicle to attain
that shared objective. Further, allowing this matter to proceed on a separate track from
the other Related Actions increases the risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent
2 See Wells Declaration 1] 5. The districts suggested to the JPML as the potential
MDL courts are: (l) the District of Delaware; (2) the Southem District ot"Ca1it`omia; and
(3) the Northem District of Califomia. This District has not been mentioned as a possible
venue by any of the parties in the actions subject to the MDL 1717 Petition. See id.
3 See Wells Declaration tl 6.
4 For example, this C0urt’s August 18, 2005 Order contemplates that the Court and
the parties will engage in scheduling and discovery activities that will have to be repeated
when this case is transferred and consolidated.
S For example, the JPML heard arguments on ten MDL petitions during its July 28,
2005 session; it decided nine of those petitions within one month. The tenth petition,
which involved merging four existing MDLs, was decided in six weeks. See
MlA\15762S.2 2
oeoocsmssasu
Case 1 :05-cv-00912-JJF Document 13-10 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 3 of 4
rulings, orders, and judgments. These are exactly the sort of risks that the MDL
procedure aims to eliminate. Republic of Venezuela v. Philip Morris Cos., No. 99-0586-
Civ., 1999 WL 33911677, at *1 (SYD. Pia. April 28, 1999) (Ending cause for a stay
pending decision by JPML on motion to transfer).
5. A proposed Agreed Order is attached for the Court’s consideration.
Dated: October 31, 2005
HARKE & CLASBY LLP DUANE MORRIS LLP
. r · I ·s
l JIIH
L __ k . arvey W Gurland, Jr., P.A.
(Fl . arN0. 8 3599) (Fla. Bar 0. 284033)
Howard M. Bushman 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, 34"‘ Floor
(Fla. Bar No. 0364230) Miami, FL 33131
155 South Miami Avenue Telephone: (305) 960-2200
Suite 600 Facsimile: (305) 960-2201
Miami, FL 33130
Phone: (305) 536-8220 BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP
Facsimile: (305) 536-8229 David M. Balabanian
Christopher B. Hockett
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL Joy K. Fuyuno
SHAPIRO LLP Three Embarcadero Center
Steve W. Berman San Francisco, CA 94111-4067
Anthony D. Shapiro Telephone: (415) 393-2000
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Facsimile: (415) 393-2286
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Richard A. Ripley
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 1120 20th Street, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
Attorneys for Plaintiff Telephone: (202) 778-6101
NATHANIEL SCHWARTZ Facsimile: (202) 393-6929
Attomeys for Defendant
INTEL CORPORATION
MlA\I57625.2 3
DCDOCS/638381.1
Case 1 :05-cv-00912-JJF Document 13-10 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CER"i`i'F`r' that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
f
instmment was sent via United States Mail this & day of November, 2005, to: Lance
A. Harke, P.A., Howard M. Bushman, Esq., Harke & Clasby, LLP, 155 South Miami
Avenue, Suite 600, Miami, Florida 33130 and Steve W. Berman, Esq., Anthony D.
Shapiro, Esq., 1301 Filih Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, Washington 98101.
eyW urland, Jr., P.A.
>u».usv¤zs.z 4
DcDOCSr638sat.1
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms