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)
kbelgum@nixonpeabody.com
John R. Foote (State Bar No. 99674)
jfoote@nixonpeabody.com
Blaire Z. Russell (State Bar No. 271693)
brussell@nixonpeabody.com
NIXON PEABODY LLP
One Embarcadero Center, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3600
Telephone:
(415) 984-8200
Facsimile:
(415) 984-8300
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
(415) 984-8200 (Phone)
(415) 984.8300 (Facsimile)
kbelgum@nixonpeabody.com
jfoote@nixonpeabody.com
brussell@nixonpeabody.com
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
(415) 398-3600 (Phone)
(415) 398-2438 (Facsimile)
cblumenstein@nossaman.com
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
(415) 268-7000 (Phone)
(415) 268-7522 (Facsimile)
mgoldman@mofo.com
sfreccero@mofo.com
dforan@mofo.com
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
(212) 819-8200 (Phone)
(212) 354-8113 (Facsimile)
ccurran@whitecase.com
mtoto@whitecase.com
jchung@whitecase.com
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
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?