Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Au Optronics Corp. et al

Filing 337

ORDER SUGGESTING REMAND TO TRANSFEROR COURTS 8154 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/24/2013)

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

Costco Wholesale Corporation v. AU Optronics
Corp. et al., Case No. 11-CV-00058
Electrograph Systems, Inc. v. Epson Imaging
Devices Corp. et al., Case No. 10-CV-00117

16

Motorola Mobility Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp. et
al., Case No. 09-CV-5840

17

/

18
19
20
21
22
23

This matter is before the court on the plaintiffs' Administrative Motion for Suggestion of
Remand in the above-captioned cases. The motion seeks a suggestion from this Court to the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, that these cases be remanded to their respective transferor courts. For
the reasons stated below, the court GRANTS the motion, and SUGGESTS remand of these three cases
to their transferor courts. Docket No. 8154.

24
25
26
27
28

BACKGROUND
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred to this Court for coordinated
pretrial proceedings numerous antitrust actions relating to an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices for thin
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
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

LEGAL STANDARD
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a), pursuant to which these three cases were transferred here, provides
in relevant part:
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.

13

(emphasis added). Once “coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings” have been completed in the

14

transferee court, the transferred cases must be remanded to their original courts (whether for trial or

15

otherwise). Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 28 (1998). The

16

authority to do so, however, rests entirely with the JPML; this Court lacks the power to remand an action

17

transferred to it under Section 1407. See id. (noting § 1407(a) “imposes a duty on the Panel to remand

18

any such action to the original district ‘at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings' ”). The

19

transferee judge may recommend remand of an action to the transferor court by filing a suggestion of

20

remand with the Panel. See Panel Rule 10.1(b)(i).

21
22

DISCUSSION

23

Plaintiffs’ administrative motion requests that the Court suggest to the JPML that the three

24

above-captioned cases be remanded back to the transferor courts from which each originated.

25

Defendants do not oppose the motion.

26

The Court concludes that the purposes behind consolidating these related actions in this Court

27

have now been served. The Court has addressed numerous discovery disputes, dispositive motions, and

28

other pretrial issues involving facts and legal questions common to the various cases in this MDL
2

1

proceeding, including Daubert motions involving experts common to the cases to be tried in this Court

2

and the cases that will be remanded. No further pretrial motions raising common questions are pending

3

in these three cases, and remand to their transferor courts appears to be in the interest of judicial

4

efficiency. See Docket No. 8102. Accordingly, the Court respectfully SUGGESTS to the JPML that

5

each of the above-captioned actions be REMANDED to its court of origin.

6
7
8
9

CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Rule 10.1(b)(I) of the Rules of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the
court SUGGESTS that the Panel REMAND the following cases to their transferor courts:

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Costco Wholesale Corporation v. AU Optronics Corp. et al., Case No. 11-CV-00058;

11

Electrograph Systems, Inc. v. Epson Imaging Devices Corp. et al., Case No. 10-CV-00117;

12

Motorola Mobility Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp. et al., Case No. 09-CV-5840.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: June 24, 2013
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3