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

Filing 152

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS LG DISPLAY AMERICA, INC. AND LG DISPLAY CO., LTD'S COUNTERCLAIMS AND STRIKE THEIR DEFENSES RE DUPLICATIVE RECOVERY 139 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/22/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION
/

No. M 07-1827 SI
MDL. No. 1827

10

This Order Relates to:

Case Nos.: C 11-3763 SI; C 11-2495 SI; C 112225 SI; C 11-4119 SI; C 11-2591 SI

11

Interbond Corporation of America v. AU
Optronics Corporation, et al., C 11-3763 SI

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO DISMISS LG DISPLAY
AMERICA, INC. AND LG DISPLAY CO.,
LTD’S COUNTERCLAIMS AND STRIKE
THEIR DEFENSES RE DUPLICATIVE
RECOVERY

Jaco Electronics, Inc. v. AU Optronics
Corporation, et al., C 11-2495 SI
Office Depot, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation,
et al., C 11-2225 SI
P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, et
al. v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al.,
C 11-4119 SI
T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc. v. AU Optronics
Corporation, et al., C 11-2591 SI
/

20

Now before the Court is a motion by various direct action plaintiffs to dismiss the counterclaims

21

of defendants LG Display America, Inc. and LG Display Co., Ltd. (collectively, “LG”) and to strike

22

LG’s defenses concerning duplicative recovery. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court found

23

this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. Having considered the parties’ papers, and

24

for good cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion.

25

Plaintiffs seek to dismiss the counterclaims that LG has asserted to avoid so-called “duplicative

26

recovery” and to strike LG’s defenses regarding the same. Motion at 1. In response, LG raises

27

arguments very similar to those made in Defendants’ Motion Regarding Trial Structure and For Relief

28

to Avoid Duplicative Damages, Master Docket No. 5258, and LG’s Motion for Leave to Amend, Master

1

Docket No. 5795. As the Court has held twice before, LG has not provided a legal basis for its

2

“violation of laws of duplicative recovery” defense or for its related counterclaims.

3

Regarding Trial Structure, Master Docket No. 5518 (April 20, 2012); Order Denying LG Display

4

America, Inc. and LG Display Co., Ltd.’s Motion for Leave to Amend, Master Docket No. 5795 (May

5

25, 2012); see also In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litig., 643 F. Supp. 2d 1143, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

6

(“Duplicative recovery is, in many if not all cases alleging a nationwide conspiracy with both direct and

7

indirect purchaser classes, a necessary consequence that flows from indirect purchaser recovery.”)

8

(quoting In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 516 F. Supp. 2d. 1072, 1089

9

(N.D. Cal. 2007)). The Court finds no reason to depart from its previous rulings.

See Order

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion. Master Docket No. 6227; Docket No. 124

11

in C 11-3763 SI; Docket No. 137 in C 11-2495 SI; Docket No. 149 in C 11-2225 SI; Docket No. 137

12

in C 11-4119 SI; and Docket No. 139 in C 11-2591 SI.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: September 22, 2012

17

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2