Motorola, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 113

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CERTIFY UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1292(b) - MOTOROLA (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2011)

Download PDF
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. C 09-5840 SI 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California No. M 07-1827 SI MDL No. 1827 This Order Relates To: 11 MOTOROLA, INC., 12 13 14 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CERTIFY UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) - MOTOROLA Plaintiff, v. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. 15 / 16 Defendants have filed a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal of this Court’s March 28, 2011, 17 order finding that it has subject matter jurisdiction over Motorola’s “foreign-purchase” antitrust 18 claims.1 The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and therefore 19 VACATES the hearing currently scheduled for May 27, 2011. Having considered the moving papers 20 and the arguments presented, the Court hereby GRANTS defendants’ motion. 21 Certification of an interlocutory appeal is appropriate where an “order involves a controlling 22 question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and . . . immediate 23 appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 24 1292(b). In this case, the jurisdictional question is “controlling” because it will have a significant 25 impact on the scope of Motorola’s claims in this case. See In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 1020, 26 27 1 28 The facts of this matter are set out in detail in this Court’s March 28, 2011, order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss Motorola’s second amended complaint. 1026 (9th Cir. 1982) (stating that a question is controlling when “resolution of the issue on appeal could 2 materially affect the outcome of litigation in the district court”). Further, there is “substantial ground 3 for difference of opinion” on the proper resolution of the jurisdictional question. The question presented 4 here – whether the negotiation within the United States of a contract setting a global, super-competitive 5 price can satisfy the domestic-injury exception to the FTAIA’s jurisdictional bar – was one of first 6 impression. In concluding that the domestic-injury exception applied, this Court distinguished a related 7 line of cases rejecting the “arbitrage” theory of jurisdiction. See In re Dynamic Random Access Memory 8 (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 546 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008); In re Monosodium Glutamate Antitrust Litig., 9 477 F.3d 535 (8th Cir. 2007); Empagran S.A.v. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd., 417 F.3d 1267 (D.C. Cir. 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 1 2005); see also Sun Microsystems Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., 534 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (N.D. Cal. 11 2007). While the allegations in this case are materially different from those in the “arbitrage” cases, the 12 Court believes the novelty of the issue merits appellate review. Finally, immediate appeal will 13 “materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation” by more clearly establishing the scope 14 of the issues at trial, including the defendants’ ultimate liability. 15 Given the novelty of the issue and the significant impact its resolution will have on this case, the 16 Court finds that certification of an interlocutory appeal is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court 17 VACATES the May 27, 2011, hearing and GRANTS defendants’ motion. Docket No. 2649 in 07-1827; 18 Docket No. 91 in 09-5840. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: May 25, 2011 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?