T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc. v AU Optronics Corporation, et al

Filing 139

MOTION to Dismiss LG Counterclaims filed by T-Mobile USA Inc. Motion Hearing set for 9/7/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. Responses due by 8/2/2012. Replies due by 8/9/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rubinstein, Jason) (Filed on 7/19/2012)

David Orozco (CA Bar No. 220732)
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 950
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail:
[e-mail]
Parker C. Folse (pro hac vice)
Brooke A. M. Taylor (pro hac vice)
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1201 Third Ave, Suite 3800
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Edward A. Friedman (pro hac vice)
Daniel B. Rapport (pro hac vice)
Hallie B. Levin (pro hac vice)
Jason C. Rubinstein (pro hac vice)
FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEILER &
ADELMAN LLP
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036-6516
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

[Additional counsel listed on signature pages]

Counsel for Plaintiff T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
IN RE TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL)
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Master File No. C M:07-01827 SI
MDL NO. 1827

This Document Relates to:
Interbond Corporation of America v. AU
Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No.
3:11-cv-03763 SI
Jaco Electronics, Inc. v. AU Optronics
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-02495 SI,
Office Depot, Inc. v. AU Optronics
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-02225 SI
P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation,
et al. v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 3:11-cv-04119 SI
T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc. v. AU Optronics
Corporation, et al., Case No 3:11-cv-02591 SI

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
DEFENDANTS LG DISPLAY
AMERICA, INC. AND LG DISPLAY
CO., LTD.’S COUNTERCLAIMS
AND STRIKE THEIR DEFENSES
CONCERNING DUPLICATIVE
RECOVERY
Date:
Time:
Location:

September 7, 2012
9:00 AM
Courtroom 10, 19th Floor
450 Golden Gate Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94102

The Court, having considered plaintiffs ABC Appliance, Inc. (“ABC”), Interbond
Corporation of America, d/b/a BrandsMart USA (“BrandsMart”), Jaco Electronics, Inc. (“Jaco”),
MARTA Cooperative of America, Inc. (“MARTA”), Office Depot, Inc. (“Office Depot”), P.C.
Richard & Son Long Island Corporation (“P.C. Richard”), and T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc.’s
(“T-Mobile,” and together with the aforementioned plaintiffs, the “Moving DAPs”) motion to
dismiss defendants LG Display America, Inc. and LG Display Co., Ltd.’s (together, “LG
Display”) counterclaims pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) and strike their defenses concerning
duplicative recovery pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f)(2), and the written submissions of the
parties for and against said motion, and having heard the argument of the parties, and with good
cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the DAPs’ motion is GRANTED, as set forth
below:
1.

LG Display’s counterclaims against the Moving DAPs based on Due

Process under the Fifth Amendment (Dkt. Nos. 5247 & 5248 (Office Depot) Counterclaim No.
3; 5250 & 5251 (BrandsMart) Counterclaim No. 2; 5252 & 5253 (T-Mobile) Counterclaim No.
3; 5254 & 5255 (P.C. Richard, et al.) Counterclaim No. 5; 5302 & 5303 (Jaco) Counterclaim No.
1) are dismissed pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), with prejudice;
2.

LG Display’s counterclaims against the Moving DAPs based on Due

Process under the Fourteenth Amendment (Dkt. Nos. 5247 & 5248 (Office Depot) Counterclaim
No. 4; 5250 & 5251 (BrandsMart) Counterclaim No. 3; 5252 & 5253 (T-Mobile) Counterclaim
No. 4; 5254 & 5255 (P.C. Richard, et al.) Counterclaim No. 6; 5302 & 5303 (Jaco)
Counterclaim No. 2) are dismissed pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), with prejudice;
3.

LG Display’s counterclaims against the Moving DAPs based on Florida
2

Master File No. C M:07-01827 SI
MDL NO. 1827

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOVING DAPS’
MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
LG DISPLAY’S COUNTERCLAIMS AND DEFENSES
CONCERNING DUPLICATIVE RECOVERY

law (Dkt. Nos. 5247 & 5248 (Office Depot) Counterclaim No. 1; 5250 & 5251 (BrandsMart)
Counterclaim No. 1) are dismissed pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), with prejudice;
4.

LG Display’s counterclaims against the Moving DAPs based on Illinois

law (Dkt. Nos. 5254 & 5255 (P.C. Richard, et al.) Counterclaim No. 2) are dismissed pursuant to
FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), with prejudice;
5.

LG Display’s counterclaims against the Moving DAPs based on New

York law (Dkt. Nos. 5252 & 5253 (T-Mobile) Counterclaim No. 2; 5254 & 5255 (P.C. Richard,
et al.) Counterclaim No. 4) are dismissed pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), with prejudice;
6.

LG Display’s counterclaims against the Moving DAPs based on Arizona

law (Dkt. Nos. 5254 & 5255 (P.C. Richard, et al.) Counterclaim No. 1) are dismissed pursuant to
FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), with prejudice;
7.

LG Display’s counterclaims against the Moving DAPs based on Michigan

law (Dkt. Nos. 5254 & 5255 (P.C. Richard, et al.) Counterclaim No. 3) are dismissed pursuant to
FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), with prejudice;
8.

LG Display’s counterclaims against the Moving DAPs based on California

law (Dkt. Nos. 5247 & 5248 (Office Depot) Counterclaim No. 2; 5252 & 5253 (T-Mobile)
Counterclaim No. 1) are dismissed pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), with prejudice;
9.

LG Display’s defenses to the Moving DAPs’ claims based on Due Process

under the Fifth Amendment (Dkt. Nos. 5247 & 5248 (Office Depot) Defense No. 14; 5250 &
5251 (BrandsMart) Defense No. 14; 5252 & 5253 (T-Mobile) Defense No. 14; 5254 & 5255
(P.C. Richard, et al.) Defense No. 14; 5302 & 5303 (Jaco) Defense No. 14) are stricken pursuant
to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f)(2), with prejudice;
3
Master File No. C M:07-01827 SI
MDL NO. 1827

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOVING DAPS’
MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
LG DISPLAY’S COUNTERCLAIMS AND DEFENSES
CONCERNING DUPLICATIVE RECOVERY

10.

LG Display’s defenses to the Moving DAPs’ claims based on Due Process

under the Fourteenth Amendment (Dkt. Nos. 5247 & 5248 (Office Depot) Defense No. 15; 5250
& 5251 (BrandsMart) Defense No. 15; 5252 & 5253 (T-Mobile) Defense No. 15; 5254 & 5255
(P.C. Richard, et al.) Defense No. 15; 5302 & 5303 (Jaco) Defense No. 15) are stricken pursuant
to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f)(2), with prejudice;
11.

LG Display’s defenses to the Moving DAPs’ claims based on Florida law

(Dkt. Nos. 5247 & 5248 (Office Depot) Defense No. 18; 5250 & 5251 (BrandsMart) Defense
No. 18) are stricken pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f)(2), with prejudice;
12.

LG Display’s defenses to the Moving DAPs’ claims based on Illinois law

(Dkt. Nos. 5254 & 5255 (P.C. Richard, et al.) Defense No. 19) are stricken pursuant to FED. R.
CIV. P. 12(f)(2), with prejudice;
13.

LG Display’s defenses to the Moving DAPs’ claims based on New York

law (Dkt. Nos. 5252 & 5253 (T-Mobile) Defense No. 19; 5254 & 5255 (P.C. Richard, et al.)
Defense No. 21) are stricken pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f)(2), with prejudice;
14.

LG Display’s defenses to the Moving DAPs’ claims based on Arizona law

(Dkt. Nos. 5254 & 5255 (P.C. Richard, et al.) Defense No. 18) are stricken pursuant to FED. R.
CIV. P. 12(f)(2), with prejudice;
15.

LG Display’s defenses to the Moving DAPs’ claims based on Michigan

law (Dkt. Nos. 5254 & 5255 (P.C. Richard, et al.) Defense No. 20) are stricken pursuant to FED.
R. CIV. P. 12(f)(2), with prejudice;
16.

LG Display’s defenses to the Moving DAPs’ claims based on California

law (Dkt. Nos. 5247 & 5248 (Office Depot) Defense No. 19; 5252 & 5253 (T-Mobile) Defense
4
Master File No. C M:07-01827 SI
MDL NO. 1827

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOVING DAPS’
MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
LG DISPLAY’S COUNTERCLAIMS AND DEFENSES
CONCERNING DUPLICATIVE RECOVERY

No. 18) are stricken pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f)(2), with prejudice;
17.

LG Display’s defenses to the Moving DAPs’ claims based on

Unconstitutional Multiplicity (Dkt. Nos. 5247 & 5248 (Office Depot) Defense No. 13; 5250 &
5251 (BrandsMart) Defense No. 13; 5252 & 5253 (T-Mobile) Defense No. 13; 5254 & 5255
(P.C. Richard, et al.) Defense No. 13; 5302 & 5303 (Jaco) Defense No. 13) are stricken pursuant
to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f)(2), with prejudice;
18.

LG Display’s defenses to the Moving DAPs’ claims based on Equal

Protection (Dkt. Nos. 5247 & 5248 (Office Depot) Defense No. 16; 5250 & 5251 (BrandsMart)
Defense No. 16; 5252 & 5253 (T-Mobile) Defense No. 16; 5254 & 5255 (P.C. Richard, et al.)
Defense No. 16; 5302 & 5303 (Jaco) Defense No. 16) are stricken pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.
12(f)(2), with prejudice;
19.

LG Display’s defenses to the Moving DAPs’ claims based on Excessive

Fines under the Eighth Amendment (Dkt. Nos. 5247 & 5248 (Office Depot) Defense No. 17;
5250 & 5251 (BrandsMart) Defense No. 17; 5252 & 5253 (T-Mobile) Defense No. 17; 5254 &
5255 (P.C. Richard, et al.) Defense No. 17; 5302 & 5303 (Jaco) Defense No. 17) Defense No.
18) are stricken pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f)(2), with prejudice; and
20.

LG Display’s defenses to the Moving DAPs’ claims based on the “Laws

of Duplicative Recovery” (Dkt. Nos. 5247 & 5248 (Office Depot) Defense No. 20; 5250 & 5251
(BrandsMart) Defense No. 19; 5252 & 5253 (T-Mobile) Defense No. 20; 5254 & 5255 (P.C.
Richard, et al.) Defense No. 22; 5302 & 5303 (Jaco) Defense No. 18) are stricken pursuant to
FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f)(2), with prejudice.

5
Master File No. C M:07-01827 SI
MDL NO. 1827

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOVING DAPS’
MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
LG DISPLAY’S COUNTERCLAIMS AND DEFENSES
CONCERNING DUPLICATIVE RECOVERY

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _________________, 2012

______________________________________
The Honorable Susan Y. Illston
United States District Judge

6
Master File No. C M:07-01827 SI
MDL NO. 1827

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOVING DAPS’
MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
LG DISPLAY’S COUNTERCLAIMS AND DEFENSES
CONCERNING DUPLICATIVE RECOVERY