Office Depot, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 16

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF OFFICE DEPOTS MOTION FOR ORDER TO SERVE DEFENDANT CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES, LTD. THROUGH ITS U.S. COUNSEL (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2011)

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. C 11-2225 SI

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

This Order Relates To:

15

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ORDER TO SERVE
DEFENDANT CHUNGHWA PICTURE
TUBES, LTD. THROUGH ITS U.S.
COUNSEL

OFFICE DEPOT, INC.,
Plaintiff,

13
14

No. M 07-1827 SI
MDL No. 1827

v.
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

16

/

17
Plaintiff has filed a motion to serve a foreign defendant, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., through
18
its U.S. counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). The Court has previously
19
considered and granted a number of similar motions in this MDL. See, e.g., Order Re: Defendant
20
Nexgen MediaTech Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process; Quashing Service; and
21
Granting Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion to Serve Nexgen Through its Counsel Under Fed. R. Civ.
22
P. 4(f)(3), Nov. 19, 2008 (Master Docket No. 725); see also Master Docket Nos. 1309, 1657, 1779,
23
2109, 2532, 2584, 2747, and 2748. Chunghwa has opposed these motions to preserve its objection to
24
the manner of service, but has recognized this Court’s inclination to permit service through its U.S.
25
counsel.
26
Given the number of these motions, the Court is well acquainted with the content of Chunghwa’s
27
28

1

opposition.1 In order to save Chunghwa both the time and expense of filing another opposition brief,

2

the Court rules as follows:
For the reasons set forth in its prior orders, the Court finds that service under Rule 4(f)(3) is both

4

available to plaintiff and appropriate in this case. See, e.g., Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink,

5

284 F.3d 1007, 1014-15 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that service of process under Rule 4(f)(3) is not a “last

6

resort,” but “merely one means among several which enables service of process on an international

7

defendant”). Further, due to Chunghwa’s active participation in this MDL for the past three years, the

8

Court finds that service through its U.S. counsel will fully comport with due process. See FMAC Loan

9

Receivables v. Dagra, 228 F.R.D. 531, 534 (E.D. Va. 2005) (finding service on defendant through his

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

attorney complied with due process because the numerous motions filed by defendant’s attorney made

11

it “abundantly clear” that the two had been in constant communication).

12

Absent further objection from Chunghwa, Office Depot may serve Chunghwa through its U.S.

13

counsel after June 10, 2011. If Chunghwa has a specific objection not already addressed by the prior

14

orders of this Court, it may file an opposition before that date.

15
16

CONCLUSION

17

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s

18

motion to serve Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. through its U.S. counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of

19

Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). Docket No. 11 in C 11-2225 SI; Docket No. 2799 in M 07-1827 SI. Absent

20

further objection from Chunghwa, plaintiff may serve Chunghwa through counsel after June 10, 2011.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 27, 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

1

Specifically, Chunghwa’s opposition briefs have argued 1) that plaintiffs have not met the
requirements for invoking alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3); and 2) that service through its U.S.
counsel violates due process.
2