Eastman Kodak Company v. Epson Imaging Devices Corporation et al

Filing 75

ORDER by Judge Susan Illston granting ( 6217 ) Stipulation in case 3:07-md-01827-SI; granting (74) Stipulation in case 3:10-cv-05452-SI regarding Plaintiff Eastman Kodak Co. State Law Claims (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

9Karl D. Belgum (State Bar No. 122752)
[e-mail]
John R. Foote (State Bar No. 99674)
[e-mail]
Blaire Z. Russell (State Bar No. 271693)
[e-mail]
NIXON PEABODY LLP
One Embarcadero Center, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3600
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Eastman Kodak Company

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12
13

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

MDL No. 1827

14
15

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

16

Case No.: 10-cv-5254 SI

17

EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY,

v.

19

21
22
23

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING PLAINTIFF EASTMAN
KODAK COMPANY’S STATE LAW
CLAIMS

Plaintiff,

18

20

CASE NO. 3:07-md-1827 SI

EPSON IMAGING DEVICES CORPORATION;
EPSON ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.;
TOSHIBA CORPORATION; TOSHIBA
AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS,
INC.; TOSHIBA MOBILE DISPLAY CO.,
LTD.; AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION; AU
OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA,
INC.

24

Defendants.

25
26
27
28
MASTER FILE NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI
1
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-5452-SI
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING KODAK’S STATE LAW CLAIMS
14069017.1

WHEREAS plaintiff Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”) filed a First Amended Complaint in

1
2

the above-captioned case against defendants Epson Imaging Devices Corporation, Epson Electronics

3

America, Inc., Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., Toshiba Mobile

4

Display Co., Ltd., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., AU Optronics Corporation, and AU

5

Optronics Corporation America (collectively, “Defendants”) on June 9, 2011 (“First Amended

6

Complaint”);

7

WHEREAS Kodak’s First Amended Complaint asserts a claim for relief for violation of

8

California antitrust law for all U.S. purchases (Second Claim for Relief); violation of California

9

antitrust law for California purchases (Third Claim for Relief); violation of Nevada antitrust law for

10

Nevada purchases (Fourth Claim for Relief); and violation of New York antitrust law for New York

11

purchases (Fifth Claim for Relief);
WHEREAS Kodak’s Second Claim for Relief was already dismissed by the Court by order

12
13

dated August 23, 2011 (Order Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Kodak’s First

14

Amended Complaint, Case No. 3:10-cv-05452-SI, Docket No. 32), which recognized that Kodak

15

sought to preserve this claim in the event the Ninth Circuit reverses the Court’s order in the pending

16

interlocutory appeal in the AT&T action (see Order Granting Plaintiff AT&T Mobility’s Motion to

17

Certify Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), Case No. 3:09-cv-04997-SI, Docket No. 99);
WHEREAS, after the filing of Kodak’s First Amended Complaint, the Court issued two orders

18
19

in the Costco action that clarified the definition of an in-state purchase for Due Process purposes and

20

applied choice of law principles to decide that Washington law applied to Costco’s claims, see In re

21

TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig. (Costco I), Nos. M 07-1827, C 11-0058 SI, 2011 WL 3809767

22

(N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011); In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig. (Costco II), Nos. M 07-1827,

23

C 11-0058 SI, 2011 WL 5922966 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011);
WHEREAS, on June 22, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment against

24
25

Kodak (“Motion for Summary Judgment”) arguing that partial summary judgment should be granted

26

in Defendants’ favor as to claims brought by Kodak under the laws of California and Nevada because

27

Kodak did not purchase any digital cameras in those states (Docket No. 60 in Case No. 3:10-cv-

28

05452-SI);
MASTER FILE NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-5452-SI

2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING KODAK’S STATE LAW CLAIMS
14069017.1

WHEREAS Kodak and Defendants agree that, in light of the Court’s decisions in the Costco

1
2

action, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is properly viewed as a choice of law motion;
WHEREAS Kodak and Defendants wish to resolve this matter efficiently without occupying

3
4

the Court’s time with further briefing or hearing;
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the undersigned

5
6

counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, that:

7

1.

Kodak’s Third and Fourth Claims for Relief will be dismissed with prejudice.

8

2.

Kodak reserves the right to pursue its Second Claim for Relief in the event the Ninth

9

Circuit reverses the Court’s order in the pending interlocutory appeal in the AT&T action.
3.

10

Kodak’s Fifth Claim for Relief under New York law will not be dismissed pursuant to

11

this stipulation. Kodak expressly reserves whatever rights it may have to pursue damages for any and

12

all purchases of LCD panels and products under the Fifth Claim for Relief, whether or not such

13

purchases would have been the subject of the Second, Third, or Fourth Claims for Relief.
4.

14
15

New York law will govern all of Kodak’s claims, including those based on LCD panels

and products negotiated and paid for from New York but shipped to California and Nevada.

16
17

DATED: July 18, 2012
By: /s/ Karl D. Belgum
Karl D. Belgum (CA Bar No. 122752)
John R. Foote (CA Bar No. 99674)
Blaire Z. Russell
NIXON PEABODY LLC
One Embarcadero Center, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
[phone] (Phone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Counsel for Plaintiff
Eastman Kodak Company

26
27
28
MASTER FILE NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-5452-SI

By: /s/ Carl L. Blumenstein
Carl L. Blumenstein (CA Bar No. 124158)
NOSSAMAN LLP
3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING KODAK’S STATE LAW CLAIMS
14069017.1

50 California Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-4799
[phone] (Phone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
[e-mail]

1
2
3
4

Attorneys for Defendants
AU Optronics Corporation and
AU Optronics Corporation America

5
6

By: /s/ Stephen P. Freccero
Melvin R. Goldman (Ca Bar No. 34097)
Stephen P. Freccero (CA Bar No. 131093)
Derek F. Foran (CA Bar No. 224569)
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
[phone] (Phone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Counsel for Defendants
Epson Imaging Devices Corporation and
Epson Electronics America, Inc.

15
16

By: /s/ John H. Chung
Christopher M. Curran (pro hac vice)
Martin M. Toto (pro hac vice)
John H. Chung (pro hac vice)
Kristen J. McAhren (pro hac vice)
WHITE & CASE LLP
1155 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-2787
[phone] (Phone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
kmcahren@whitecase,com

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Counsel for Defendants
Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America Electronic
Components, Inc., Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd.
and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.

26
27
28
MASTER FILE NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-5452-SI

4

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING KODAK’S STATE LAW CLAIMS
14069017.1

1

Pursuant to General Order 45, Part X-B, the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this document

2

has been obtained from the signatories to this document.

3
4

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

By: _______________________________________

7

Judge of the U.S. District Court, N.D. California

8
9

7/19/12
Date: _______________________________________

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

MASTER FILE NO. 3:07-MD-1827-SI
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-5452-SI

1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING KODAK’S STATE LAW CLAIMS
14069017.1