Target Corp. et al v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 395

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT SANYO CONSUMER ELECTRONICS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING CLAIMS BY TARGET PLAINTIFFS 5869 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/19/2012)

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

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

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

Case No. 10-4945 SI
This Order Relates to:
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT
SANYO CONSUMER ELECTRONICS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
DISMISSING CLAIMS BY TARGET
PLAINTIFFS

Target Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al.,
C 10-4945 SI

14

/

15
Defendant Sanyo Consumer Electronics’ motion for summary judgment dismissing claims by

16
17
18
19
20

the Target plaintiffs1 is scheduled for a hearing on November 30, 2012. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule
7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and
VACATES the hearing on this motion. For the reasons set forth in this order, defendants’ motion is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Docket No. 5869.

21
22
23
24
25
26

I.

Sherman Act claims
Relying on In re Citric Acid Litigation, 995 F. Supp. 951 (N.D. Cal. 1998), aff’d 191 F.3d 1090

(9th Cir. 1999), defendant contends that there is no direct evidence that it participated in the alleged
price-fixing conspiracy, and that any circumstantial evidence of its participation does not tend to exclude
the possibility that it acted independently.

27
1

28

The Target plaintiffs are Target Corporation; Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Kmart Corporation; Old
Comp Inc.; Good Guys, Inc.; Radioshack Corporation; and Newegg Inc.

1

Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the Court concludes that there is admissible

2

evidence from which a jury could conclude that defendant participated in the alleged price-fixing

3

conspiracy. Plaintiffs have submitted, inter alia, testimony showing that a Sanyo Consumer Electronics’

4

employee exchanged pricing and other proprietary LCD panel information with other defendants. See

5

Docket No. 6205-1, Ex. 16, 20.2

6

unequivocally stated that Sanyo was not involved in the conspiracy. Cf. Citric Acid, 996 F. Supp. at 956

7

(“Most persuasive is the testimony of Hans Hartmann, . . . who pled guilty to being a member of the

8

conspiracy [and] stated that no one from Cargill attended any of the meetings at which the conspirators

9

allocated market share . . . and that he never received sales figures from Cargill.”).

Further, unlike Citric Acid, no conspirator in this case has

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Defendant also contends that plaintiffs’ Sherman Act claims are barred under Illinois Brick Co.

11

v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), and In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation, 686 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2012).

12

The Court will address those arguments in a separate order ruling on defendants’ joint motion for

13

summary judgment for lack of standing under Illinois Brick and In re ATM Fee (in which Sanyo joined).

14
15

II.

State antitrust claims

16

Defendant also moves for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ state law antitrust claims. Defendant

17

contends, and Target Corporation’s opposition does not dispute, that Minnesota law applies to its

18

remaining state law claims. The Court previously held that Target Corporation’s claims against Sanyo

19

Consumer Electronics are barred by the Minnesota statute of limitations.

20

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Target Corporation’s

21

Minnesota antitrust claims.

Docket No. 4703.

22

Defendant moves for summary judgment on the other plaintiffs’ remaining state claims on the

23

ground that the antitrust laws in those states are construed in accordance with federal law, and therefore

24

that the claims fail for lack of evidence of a conspiracy. For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds

25

that there are triable issues of fact as to whether Sanyo Consumer Electronics participated in the

26
27
28

2

Defendant objected to much of plaintiffs’ evidence. The Court finds that there is sufficient
admissible evidence to defeat summary judgment, and accordingly the Court does not address
defendant’s evidentiary objections. Defendant may renew its objections at the time of trial.
2

1

conspiracy, and therefore the Court DENIES defendant’s motion for summary judgment on this ground.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: November 19, 2012

6

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

7
8
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