AT&T Mobility LLC et al v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 418

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SANYO CONSUMER ELECTRONICS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING AT&T'S CLAIMS 5875 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/19/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL)
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

No. M 07-1827 SI
MDL. No. 1827

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

Case No. C 09-4997 SI
This Order Relates to:
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
SANYO CONSUMER ELECTRONICS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
DISMISSING AT&T’S CLAIMS

AT&T Mobility LLC. v. AU Optronics Corp., et
al., C 09-4997 SI

14

/

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

Defendant Sanyo Consumer Electronics’ motion for summary judgment dismissing AT&T’s
claims is scheduled for a hearing on November 30, 2012. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court
determines that this matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the
hearing on this motion. For the reasons set forth in this order, defendant’s motion is DENIED. Docket
No. 5875.
Defendant moves for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Sherman Act claim, contending that there
is no direct evidence that Sanyo Consumer Electronics participated in the alleged price-fixing
conspiracy, and that any circumstantial evidence of its participation does not tend to exclude the
possibility that it acted independently. Defendant also moves for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ state
claims on the ground that the antitrust laws in those states are construed in accordance with federal law,
and therefore that the claims fail for lack of evidence of a conspiracy.
In response, AT&T has submitted, inter alia, evidence showing that a Sanyo Consumer
Electronics’ employee exchanged pricing and other proprietary LCD panel information with other

1

defendants.1 The Court has twice found this same evidence sufficient to defeat summary judgment. See

2

Docket Nos. 6929 & 7176. For the reasons stated in those prior orders, the Court finds that there are

3

triable issues of fact as to whether Sanyo Consumer Electronics participated in the alleged price-fixing

4

conspiracy, and therefore the Court DENIES defendant’s motion for summary judgment

5

Defendant also contends that plaintiff’s Sherman Act claim is barred under Illinois Brick Co. v.

6

Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), and In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation, 686 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2012). The

7

Court has addressed those arguments in a separate order ruling on defendants’ joint motion for summary

8

judgment for lack of standing under Illinois Brick and In re ATM Fee. See Docket No. 7188.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated: November 19, 2012

13

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

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

1

Defendant subjected to much of plaintiff’s evidence. The Court finds that there is sufficient
admissible evidence to defeat summary judgment, and accordingly the Court does not address
defendant’s evidentiary objections. Defendant may renew its objections at the time of trial.
2