Dell Inc. et al v. Sharp Corporation et al

Filing 58

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF DELL'S DONNELLY ACT CLAIM (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

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

11

This Order Relates To:

16

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS DONNELLY ACT
CLAIM

DELL INC. and DELL PRODUCTS L.P.,

14
15

MDL No. 1827
No. C 10-1064 SI

12
13

No. M 07-1827 SI

Plaintiffs,
v.
SHARP CORPORATION, et al.,

17

Defendants.

/

18
19
On April 8, 2011, plaintiffs Dell Inc. and Dell Products L.P. (“Dell”) filed a First Amended
20

Complaint against Defendants.1 (Docket No. 2629.) On April 22, 2011, Defendants Sharp and Hitachi

21
filed a motion to dismiss Dell’s Donnelly Act claim. (Docket No. 2674.) Other Defendants answered
22
the First Amended Complaint. (Docket Nos. 2676, 2677, 2678, 2679, 2680.)
23
On May 6, 2011, Dell filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal stating that Dell was dismissing its
24
Donnelly Act claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. (Docket No. 2725.) Dell’s notice
25
26
27
28

1

Defendants are Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation (collectively “Sharp”),
Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., Hitachi, Ltd. (collectively “Hitachi”),
Epson Imaging Devices Corporation, Epson Electronics America, Inc., Hannstar Display Corporation,
Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Toshiba
Corporation, and Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd.

1

stated: “To the extent there is any tension in the Circuit about a plaintiff voluntarily dismissing only

2

one of several claims, Dell believes it is proper, and efficient for the Court and the defendants, to

3

dismiss its New York state law claim and therefore does not oppose the Motion to Dismiss its Donnelly

4

Act claims.” (Notice at 1 n.1.) Dell separately filed a Response in Opposition to Sharp and Hitachi’s

5

motion to dismiss that stated:

6
7
8

Dell has concurrently herewith voluntarily dismissed its Donnelly Act claim. Because
the Donnelly Act claim was the only count challenged by Defendants’ motion to
dismiss,[] Dell requests that the Court deny the Sharp and Hitachi Defendants’ motion
as moot.[] In the alternative, Dell does not oppose the motion to dismiss the Donnelly
Act Claim.
(Docket No. 2726 at 1 (citations omitted).) On May 13, 2011, Defendants Sharp and Hitachi filed a

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

reply to their motion stating that voluntary dismissal under Rule 41 would be improper in this case and

11

requesting that the Court grant their motion to dismiss. (Docket No. 2770.)

12

Rule 41(a)(1)(A) states that “the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing:

13

(I) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary

14

judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

15

41(a)(1)(A). “[A] plaintiff may not use Rule 41(a)(1)(I)2 to dismiss, unilaterally, a single claim from

16

a multi-claim complaint.” Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988).

17

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) is the appropriate mechanism ‘[w]here a plaintiff desires to

18

eliminate an issue, or one or more but less than all of several claims, but without dismissing as to any

19

of the defendants.’” Id.

20

In this case, Dell seeks to dismiss only its Donnelly Act claim while continuing to prosecute its

21

remaining eight causes of action. Moreover, Dell filed its notice of dismissal two weeks after certain

22

defendants answered the First Amended Complaint. For both reasons, voluntary dismissal under Rule

23

41(a)(1)(A)(I) would be improper. Dell states, however, that in the event the Court does not grant

24

voluntary dismissal under Rule 41, Dell does not oppose Defendant Sharp and Hitachi’s motion to

25

dismiss.

26
27
28

2

On December 1, 2007, an amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 renumbered the
relevant provision from Rule 41(a)(1)(i) to its current form, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). See Lorillard Tobacco
Co. v. Engida, 611 F.3d 1209, 1213 n.2 (10th Cir. 2010).
2

1

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant Sharp and Hitachi’s Motion to Dismiss Count Six

2

of the First Amended Complaint alleging violations of the Donnelly Act, New York Gen. Bus. Law

3

§§ 340 et seq. (Docket No. 2674.) Dell may file an amended complaint reflecting the dismissal of its

4

Donnelly Act claim on or before May 27, 2011.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: May 16, 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3