TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 135

ORDER RE: APRIL 23, 2014 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 8957 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/23/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

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

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

13

This Order Relates to:

14

ORDER RE: APRIL 23, 2014 CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

The AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust, by and
through Kenneth A. Welt, Liquidating Trustee v.
AU Optronics, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-5781 SI

12

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

Acer America Corp. v. Hitachi Ltd., et al., Case
No. 3:13-cv-3349 SI
Alfred H. Siegel, as Trustee of the Circuit City
Stores, Inc. Liquidating Trust v. AU Optronics
Corp., et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-5625 SI
CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. AU Optronics
Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-6241 SI
Home Depot U.S.A.,, Inc. v. AU Optronics
Corp., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-6001 SI
Interbond Corp. of America v. AU Optronics
Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-3763 SI
MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics
Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-829 SI
NECO Alliance LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., et
al., Case No. 3:12-cv-1426 SI
Office Depot, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al.,
Case No. 3:11-cv-2225 SI

1
2
3

P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp. et al., v.
AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv4119 SI
Proview Technology, Inc. v. AU Optronics
Corp., et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-3802 SI

4
5
6
7

S.B. Liquidation Trust v. AU Optronics Corp., et
al., Case No. 3:10-cv-5458 SI
Schultze Agency Servs. LLC, on behalf of
Tweeter Opco. LLC and Tweeter Newco, LLC v.
AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv3856 SI

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

10
11
12
13
14

Sony Elec., Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al.,
Case No. 3:12-cv-2214 SI
State of Oregon v. AU Optronics Corp., et al.,
Case No. 3:10-cv-4346 SI
Tech Data Corp., et al. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-5765 SI
Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-3205 SI
/

15
16

On April 23, 2014, the Court held a case management conference in the remaining Track 2 and

17

Track 3 cases, as well as the case brought by the State of Oregon, State of Oregon v. AU Optronics

18

Corp., et al., C 10-4346 SI.

19

The Court GRANTED the administrative motion for substitution of liaison counsel for direct

20

action plaintiffs. Docket No. 8957. The Court hereby appoints David B. Esau of the firm Carlton Fields

21

Jorden Burt as Liaison Counsel for the Direct Action Plaintiffs. Carl Blumenstein will continue in his

22

role as Liaison Counsel for defendants. The Court will issue a separate order regarding AUO’s

23

administrative motion regarding liaison counsel for the direct and indirect purchaser classes. Docket

24

No. 8963.

25

As discussed during the conference, there are thirteen remaining Track 2 cases. Mr. Blumenstein

26

informed the Court that one of those cases, SB Liquidation Trust, C 10-5458 SI, has settled and that the

27

parties expect to file a dismissal shortly. In the Sony case, C 12-2214 SI, the parties will file a stipulated

28

judgment so the parties can proceed directly to an appeal in the Ninth Circuit. At the conclusion of
2

1

pretrial proceedings in this Court, ten of the Track 2 cases will be remanded to their respective transferor

2

courts. Those cases are AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust, C 11-5781 SI; Interbond Corp., C 11-3763 SI;

3

CompuCom, C 11-6241 SI; MetroPCS Wireless, C 11-829 SI; NECO Alliance, C 12-1426 SI; Office

4

Depot, C 11-2225 SI; P.C. Richard & Son, C 11-4119 SI; Tech Data Corp., C 11-5765 SI; Tracfone

5

Wireless, C 10-3205 SI; and Schultze Agency Services LLC, C 11-3856 SI.
The final Track 2 case, Alfred H. Siegel, C10-5625 SI (“Circuit City”), and the three Track 3

7

cases (Acer, C 13-3349 SI; Proview, C 12-3802 SI; and Home Depot, C 13-6001 SI), were originally

8

filed in this Court. The Court directed plaintiffs’ counsel in these cases to meet and confer with

9

defendants’ liaison counsel regarding a further pretrial schedule for the Track 3 cases, as well as

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

proposed trial dates for all four cases. As the Court informed the parties, it is the Court’s expectation

11

that these cases can be tried before the end of 2015, with the Circuit City trial taking place during the

12

summer of 2015. The parties shall file a proposed pretrial schedule for the Track 3 cases, and proposed

13

trial dates for Circuit City and the Track 3 cases, by May 7, 2014. The Court also GRANTED counsel’s

14

request for a one week extension of the deadline to file supplemental briefs on the motion to dismiss

15

Proview’s state claims; the supplemental briefs are now due May 9, 2014.

16

Finally, the Oregon case, C 10-4346 SI, is proceeding on a separate pretrial schedule, and that

17

case will be remanded to the transferor court after the conclusion of pretrial proceedings in this Court.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: April 23, 2014

22

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
3