Best Buy Co., Inc. et al v. AU Optronics Corp. et al

Filing 167

ORDER DENYING LG DISPLAY AMERICA, INC. AND LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 5275 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/25/2012)

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
/

Case Nos.: C 10-4572 SI; C 10-117 SI; C 104945 SI; C 10-5625 SI; C 10-5458 SI; C 103205 SI; C 10-3619 SI; C 1903517; C 104346 SI; C 11-0058 SI

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

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

This Order Relates to Direct Action cases filed
by:
Best Buy Co., Inc.; Electrograph Systems, Inc.;
Target Corp.; Arthur H. Siegel, trustee of Circuit
City; SB Liquidation Trust; Tacfone Wireless,
Inc.; State of Missouri, et al. (Five State); State
of Florida; State of Oregon; and Costco
Wholesale Corp.
/

ORDER DENYING LG DISPLAY
AMERICA, INC. AND LG DISPLAY CO.,
LTD.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND

17

Defendants LG Display America, Inc., and LG Display Co., LTD (collectively, “Defendants”)

18

have filed a motion in the above-captioned direct purchaser actions for leave to amend their answers to

19

add additional defenses and to file a counterclaim for declaratory relief. Master Docket No. 5271.

20

Having considered the arguments presented in the moving papers, the Court hereby DENIES

21

Defendants’ motion.

22

Defendants seek leave to amend their answers to “add additional defenses and a counterclaim

23

to address the risk of duplicative liability caused by multiple plaintiffs seeking to recover for the same

24

alleged overcharge.” Motion at 1. Defendants’ moving papers set out arguments very similar to those

25

made in Defendants’ Motion Regarding Trial Structure and For Relief to Avoid Duplicative Damages.

26

See Master Docket No. 5258. The Court found then and finds now that Defendants have not provided

27

legal basis for their proposed “violation of laws of duplicative recovery” defense or for their proposed

28

counterclaims for declaratory judgement regarding the same. See e.g., In re Flash Memory Antitrust

1

Litig., 643 F. Supp. 2d 1143, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (“Duplicative recovery is, in many if not all cases

2

alleging a nationwide conspiracy with both direct and indirect purchaser classes, a necessary

3

consequence that flows from indirect purchaser recovery.”) (quoting In re Dynamic Random Access

4

Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 516 F. Supp. 2d. 1072, 1089 (N.D. Cal. 2007)). Should Defendants

5

wish to challenge any allocation of damages, they are free to do so post-trial.

6
7
8

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend. Master Docket No.
5271.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Dated: May 25, 2012

11

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2