TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation et al
Filing
185
ORDER SUGGESTING REMAND TO TRANSFEROR COURTS (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/24/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION
/
No. M 07-1827 SI
MDL. No. 1827
This Order Relates to:
ORDER SUGGESTING REMAND TO
TRANSFEROR COURTS
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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
CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-6241 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
Office Depot, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al.,
Case No. 3:11-cv-2225 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
/
25
26
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred to this Court for coordinated
27
pretrial proceedings numerous antitrust actions relating to an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices for thin
28
film transistor-liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) panels, which are used in computer monitors, flat panel
1
television sets, and other electronic devices. The above-captioned actions were among the cases
2
transferred to this Court pursuant to the JPML’s April 20, 2007 transfer order and this Court’s July 3,
3
2007 related case pretrial order #1.
4
5
6
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a), pursuant to which these cases were transferred here, provides in
relevant part:
7
When civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact are pending
in different districts, such actions may be transferred to any district for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Such transfers shall be made by
the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation ... upon its determination that transfers
for such proceedings will be for the convenience of parties and witnesses and will
promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions. Each action so transferred
shall be remanded by the panel at or before the conclusion of such pretrial
proceedings to the district from which it was transferred unless it shall have been
previously terminated.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
(emphasis added). Once “coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings” have been completed in the
13
transferee court, the transferred cases must be remanded to their original courts (whether for trial or
14
otherwise). Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 28 (1998). The
15
authority to do so, however, rests entirely with the JPML; this Court lacks the power to remand an action
16
transferred to it under Section 1407. See id. (noting § 1407(a) “imposes a duty on the Panel to remand
17
any such action to the original district ‘at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings’”). The
18
transferee judge may recommend remand of an action to the transferor court by filing a suggestion of
19
remand with the Panel. See Panel Rule 10.1(b)(i).
20
21
The Court concludes that the purposes behind consolidating these related actions in this Court
22
have now been served. The Court has addressed numerous discovery disputes, dispositive motions, and
23
other pretrial issues involving facts and legal questions common to the various cases in this MDL
24
proceeding. No further pretrial motions raising common questions are pending in these cases, and
25
remand to the transferor courts appears to be in the interest of judicial efficiency.
26
27
///
28
///
2
1
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 10.1(b)(I) of the Rules of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
2
Litigation, the Court SUGGESTS that the Panel REMAND the following cases to their transferor courts:
3
The AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust, by and through Kenneth A. Welt, Liquidating Trustee v.
4
AU Optronics, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-5781 SI
CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-6241 SI
6
Interbond Corp. of America v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-3763 SI
7
MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-829 SI
8
Office Depot, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-2225 SI
9
Tech Data Corp., et al. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-5765 SI
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
5
Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-3205 SI.
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
Dated: February 24, 2015
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?