Jaco Electronics, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 25

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF JACO'S MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING JACO TO SERVE DEFENDANT CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES, LTD. THROUGH ITS U.S. COUNSEL re 20 . Absent objection from Chunghwa, plaintiff may serve Chunghwa through Chunghwa counsel after September 16, 2011. (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2011) Modified on 8/30/2011 (ysS, COURT STAFF).

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 11-2495 SI

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

This Order Relates To:

15
16

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

JACO ELECTRONICS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

13
14

No. M 07-1827 SI
MDL No. 1827

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

/

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 heard
19
and granted a number of similar motions in this MDL. See, e.g., Order Re: Defendant Nexgen
20
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, 2748, 2825, 3079, 3217, 3345. Chunghwa has opposed these motions to
24
preserve its objections to this manner of service, but has recognized this Court’s inclination to permit
25
service through its U.S. 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 the time and expense of filing another opposition brief, the

2

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, plaintiff may serve Chunghwa through its U.S.

13

counsel after September 16, 2011. If Chunghwa has a specific objection not already addressed by the

14

prior 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. 20 in 11-2495; Docket No. 3311 in 07-1827. Absent objection

20

from Chunghwa, plaintiff may serve Chunghwa through counsel after September 16, 2011.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 26, 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

23
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