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

Filing 174

MOTION for Reconsideration re 90 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,,,,, PLAINTIFFS T-MOBILE U.S.A., INC.'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER DISMISSING T-MOBILE'S CARTWRIGHT ACT, UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, AND DONNELLY ACT CLAIMS filed by T-Mobile USA Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rubinstein, Jason) (Filed on 3/29/2013)

1
2
3
4

Kathryn Parsons Hoek (CA Bar No. 219247)
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]

5
6
7
8
9
10

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]

11

Counsel for Plaintiff T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc.
12
13
14
15

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

16

Master File No. C M:07-01827 SI
Individual Case No. C 3:11-02591 SI
MDL No. 1827

This Document Relates to
17

Case C 3:11-02591 SI
18
19

T-MOBILE U.S.A., INC.,

20
21
22
23

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

24
25

PLAINTIFF T-MOBILE U.S.A., INC.’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THE COURT’S ORDER DISMISSING
ITS CARTWRIGHT ACT, UNFAIR
COMPETITION LAW, AND DONNELLY
ACT CLAIMS
Date:
Time:
Location:

May 3, 2013
9:00 AM
Courtroom 10, 19th Floor
450 Golden Gate Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94102

26
27
28

Master File No. C M:07-01827 SI
Individual Case No. C 3:11-02591 SI
MDL No. 1827

T-MOBILE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THE COURT’S ORDER DISMISSING ITS CARTWRIGHT
ACT, UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, AND DONNELLY
ACT CLAIMS

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Page

3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii

4

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................1

5

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES.....................................................................................................1

6

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................1

7

BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................1
8

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................3
9

I.

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION ARE APPROPRIATE
WHEN THERE HAS BEEN AN “INTERVENING CHANGE
IN CONTROLLING LAW” .............................................................................................3

II.

THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION IN AT&T IS AN
INTERVENING CHANGE IN CONTROLLING LAW .................................................3

III.
14

THE REINSTATEMENT OF T-MOBILE’S CALIFORNIA AND
NEW YORK CLAIMS WILL NOT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS ...............................3

15

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................5

10
11
12
13

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Master File No. C M:07-01827 SI
Individual Case No. C 3:11-02591 SI
MDL No. 1827

T-MOBILE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THE COURT’S ORDER DISMISSING ITS CARTWRIGHT
ACT, UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, AND DONNELLY
ACT CLAIMS

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

Page(s)

3

CASES

4

389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold,
179 F.3d 656 (9th Cir. 1999) .............................................................................................. 1, 3

5
6
7
8
9

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague,
449 U.S. 302 (1981) ................................................................................................................ 2
Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Reboans, Inc.,
900 F. Supp. 1246 (N.D. Cal. 1994) .......................................................................................3
AT&T Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp.,
707 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013) ........................................................................................ 1, 2, 3

10

STATUTES
11

CAL. BUS. & PROFS. CODE §§ 16720 et seq. .................................................................................1
12

CAL. BUS. & PROFS. CODE §§ 17200 et seq. .................................................................................1
13
14

N.Y. GEN. BUS. L. §§ 340 et seq. ..................................................................................................1

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ii
Master File No. C M:07-01827 SI
Individual Case No. C 3:11-02591 SI
MDL No. 1827

T-MOBILE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THE COURT’S ORDER DISMISSING ITS CARTWRIGHT
ACT, UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, AND DONNELLY
ACT CLAIMS

1

PRIOR RELEVANT ORDERS

2

Pursuant to the Court’s April 9, 2012 Order, below is a list of the prior orders of the

3

Court that address substantially similar arguments as those raised in this brief:

4

Date

5

6/28/10

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Case

MDL Dkt. No.

AT&T Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics,
09-4997-SI (AT&T I)
6/28/10 Motorola v. AU Optronics,
09-5840-SI (“Motorola I”)
6/29/10 Nokia v. AU Optronics,
09-5609-SI
11/12/10 AT&T Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics,
09-4997-SI (AT&T II)
3/24/11 Florida v. AU Optronics,
10-3517-SI (Florida)
3/28/11 Motorola v. AU Optronics,
09-5840-SI (Motorola II)
8/9/11
New York v. AU Optronics,
11-00711-SI (New York)
8/29/11 Costco v. AU Optronics,
11-0058-SI (Costco I)
11/28/11 Costco v. AU Optronics,
11-0058-SI (Costco II)
1/18/12 Office Depot, Inc. v. AU Optronics,
11-2225-SI (Office Depot)
1/30/12 Target Corp. v. AU Optronics,
10-4945-SI (Target I)
2/6/12
T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc. v. AU Optronics,
11-2592-SI (T-Mobile)
8/27/12 Target Corp. v. AU Optronics,
10-4945 SI (Target II)
9/18/12 Target Corp. v. AU Optronics,
10-4945 SI (Target III )
3/20/13 Proview Tech. Inc. v. AU Optronics,
12-3802-SI (Proview)

Argument Raised

1823

Due Process

1822

Due Process

1824

Due Process

2142

Due Process

2585

Due Process

2602

Due Process

3242

Due Process

3396

Due Process

4195

Choice of Law

4592

Due Process

4703

Due Process

4786

Due Process

6570

Due Process

6802

Due Process

7661

Due Process

23
24
25
26
27
28

Master File No. C M:07-01827 SI
Individual Case No. C 3:11-02591 SI
MDL No. 1827

T-MOBILE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THE COURT’S ORDER DISMISSING ITS CARTWRIGHT
ACT, UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, AND DONNELLY
ACT CLAIMS

1
2
3

NOTION OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 3, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the

4

matter may be heard, in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,

5

California, before the Honorable Susan Illston, plaintiff T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc.

6

(“T-Mobile”) will and hereby does move the Court, pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Rule 7-9 of the Northern District of California Local Rules, for

7

reconsideration of the Court’s Order re: Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, dated February 6, 2012
8

(MDL Dkt. No. 4786 (the “Order”)), dismissing T-Mobile’s indirect purchaser claims under the

9

California Cartwright Act, CAL. BUS. & PROFS. CODE §§ 16720 et seq., California Unfair

10

Competition Law, CAL. BUS. & PROFS. CODE §§ 17200 et seq., and New York Donnelly Act,

11

N.Y. GEN. BUS. L. §§ 340 et seq., on due process grounds.

12

As described in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Court of

13

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion reversing this Court’s dismissal of AT&T

14

Mobility LLC’s Cartwright Act claims and setting forth the standard for determining when

15

application of a particular state’s laws comports with due process. That standard relies on a
broader set of factors than those considered by this Court when the Court dismissed T-Mobile’s

16

Cartwright Act, Unfair Competition Law, and Donnelly Act claims. Given the Ninth Circuit’s
17

opinion, T-Mobile respectfully requested at the March 15, 2013 Case Management Conference

18

that the Court reconsider its Order and reinstate T-Mobile’s Cartwright Act, Unfair Competition

19

Law, and Donnelly Act claims. The Court granted T-Mobile leave to file this motion. (See

20

MDL Dkt. No. 7676.)

21

This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached Memorandum

22

of Points and Authorities, and on such oral argument and documentary evidence as the Court

23

may consider at the hearing of this motion.

24
25
26
27
28

Master File No. C M:07-01827 SI
Individual Case No. C 3:11-02591 SI
MDL No. 1827

T-MOBILE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THE COURT’S ORDER DISMISSING ITS CARTWRIGHT
ACT, UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, AND DONNELLY
ACT CLAIMS

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

3

Whether T-Mobile’s claims under the California Cartwright Act, CAL. BUS. & PROFS.

4

CODE §§ 16720 et seq., California Unfair Competition Law, CAL. BUS. & PROFS. CODE §§ 17200

5

et seq., and New York Donnelly Act, N.Y. GEN. BUS. L. §§ 340 et seq., should be reinstated in

6

light of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. AU
Optronics Corp., 707 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013).

7
8
9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
AT&T Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp. reinstates plaintiff AT&T Mobility LLC’s

10

(“AT&T”) Cartwright Act claims “to the extent a defendant’s conspiratorial conduct is

11

sufficiently connected to California, and is not ‘slight and casual.’” 707 F.3d 1106, at 1107,

12

1113. The Ninth Circuit specified a different standard than the “place-of-purchase” standard
relied upon by this Court in dismissing T-Mobile’s Cartwright Act, Unfair Competition Law, and

13

Donnelly Act claims on due process grounds. (See Order re: Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss,
14

dated February 6, 2012, MDL Dkt. No. 4786 (the “Order”), at 3.) This “intervening change in

15

the controlling law” is a sufficient basis for this Court to reconsider its Order and to reinstate

16

T-Mobile’s Cartwright Act, Unfair Competition Law, and Donnelly Act claims. 389 Orange St.

17

Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A] motion for reconsideration should

18

not be granted, absent, highly unusual circumstances, unless . . . there is an intervening change in
the controlling law.”).

19
20
21

BACKGROUND
In the Order, this Court dismissed T-Mobile’s Cartwright Act, Unfair Competition Law,

22

and Donnelly Act claims after ruling that “T-Mobile had failed to adequately allege that it

23

purchased LCD products in New York and California.” (Order at 3.) This Court also rejected

24

T-Mobile’s argument that T-Mobile’s significant presence in California, and its allegations that
defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in California, maintained offices in California,

25

transacted business in California, and, by their own admission, committed acts in furtherance of
26
27
28

their price-fixing conspiracy in California (see MDL Dkt. No. 4617 at 1) were sufficient to
Master File No. C M:07-01827 SI
Individual Case No. C 3:11-02591 SI
MDL No. 1827

T-MOBILE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THE COURT’S ORDER DISMISSING ITS CARTWRIGHT
ACT, UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, AND DONNELLY
ACT CLAIMS

1

support the application of California or New York law to T-Mobile’s purchases of price-fixed

2

products.1 Rather, in the Order, the Court cited to and relied on this Court’s earlier orders on the

3

due process issue, including its prior decision in the AT&T matter, and concluded that, “to invoke

4

the various state laws at issue, a plaintiff must be able to allege that the occurrence or transaction
giving rise to the litigation – which is plaintiff’s purchase of allegedly price-fixed goods –

5

occurred in the various states.” (Order at 3 (internal punctuation omitted).)
6
7

In AT&T, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered and declined to adopt the

8

“place-of-purchase” rule on which this Court relied in the Order. Indeed, in its February 14,

9

2013 opinion, the Ninth Circuit expressly stated that this Court’s “place-of-purchase” analysis

10

incorrectly “makes a single contact – the location of Plaintiffs’ injury – dispositive,” and that
application of such a standard would represent a return to a rigid standard long since abandoned

11

by the Supreme Court in its seminal Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302 (1981), decision.
12

AT&T, 707 F.3d 1106, at 1112. Rejecting this approach, the Ninth Circuit articulated a different

13

standard for determining whether an indirect purchaser’s invocation of a given state’s laws was

14

consistent with due process. Id. at 1109. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that the “sale of

15

price-fixed goods” or“[d]efendants’ alleged agreements and conspiracies to fix LCD prices”

16

could create a nexus with a state sufficient to satisfy due process. Id. at 1112. Applying this
approach, the Ninth Circuit reversed this Court’s decision dismissing AT&T’s indirect purchaser

17

claims under California law, and held that “the Cartwright Act can be lawfully applied without
18

violating a defendant’s due process rights when more than a de minimis amount of that

19

defendants’ alleged conspiratorial activity leading to the sale of price-fixed goods . . . took place

20

in California.” Id. at 1113.

21
22
1

23
24
25

T-Mobile specifically adopted the factual and legal arguments advanced by AT&T in its due process appeal. See
Plaintiff T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc.’s Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss in Part Amended Complaint
(MDL Dkt. No. 4617) at 1-2 (“T-Mobile has asserted claims against Defendants under the Cartwright Act and
California Unfair Competition Law to preserve its right to pursue such claims in the event that the governing law
concerning its standing to do so changes during the pendency of this action, including as a result of the AT&T
Mobility plaintiffs’ appeal of this Court’s rulings on this question to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.”).

26
27
28

2
Master File No. C M:07-01827 SI
Individual Case No. C 3:11-02591 SI
MDL No. 1827

T-MOBILE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THE COURT’S ORDER DISMISSING ITS CARTWRIGHT
ACT, UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, AND DONNELLY
ACT CLAIMS

1
2

ARGUMENT
I.

3

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION ARE APPROPRIATE WHEN THERE
HAS BEEN AN “INTERVENING CHANGE IN CONTROLLING LAW”

4

Motions for reconsideration “are committed to the discretion of the trial court.” Am.

5

Econ. Ins. Co. v. Reboans, Inc., 900 F. Supp. 1246, 1250 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (internal citations

6

omitted). While motions for reconsideration typically “should not be granted, absent highly

7

unusual circumstances,” 389 Orange St. Partners, 179 F.3d at 665, such a motion is appropriate
where, as here, “there has been an intervening change in controlling law.” Am. Econ. Ins. Co.,

8

900 F. Supp. at 1250 (internal citations omitted).
9
10

II.

11
12

THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION IN AT&T IS AN
INTERVENING CHANGE IN CONTROLLING LAW
AT&T Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp. is an intervening change in controlling law.

13

While this Court ruled that T-Mobile lacked standing to invoke California and New York law

14

because none of T-Mobile’s handset purchases occurred in California or New York, the Ninth

15

Circuit endorsed a more flexible, liberal standard, namely whether an “aggregation of contacts”
creates state interests such that “choice of [a state’s] law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally

16

unfair.” AT&T, 707 F.3d 1106, at 1111 (internal citations omitted). As a result of the Ninth
17

Circuit’s adoption of the “aggregation of contacts” standard, the controlling law on which this

18

Court relied in dismissing T-Mobile’s claims under the Cartwright Act, Unfair Competition Law,

19

and Donnelly Act has changed.

20

III.

21
22

THE REINSTATEMENT OF T-MOBILE’S CALIFORNIA AND
NEW YORK CLAIMS WILL NOT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS
Under the Ninth Circuit’s holding in AT&T, the allegations in T-Mobile’s Amended

23

Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief (No. 3:11-cv-02591, Dkt. No. 55 (the “Amended

24

Complaint”) are more than sufficient to support T-Mobile’s assertion of indirect purchaser

25

claims under California and New York law. T-Mobile’s Amended Complaint details the
extensive nexus between defendants’ illegal conduct and California and New York. It also

26
27
28

3
Master File No. C M:07-01827 SI
Individual Case No. C 3:11-02591 SI
MDL No. 1827

T-MOBILE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THE COURT’S ORDER DISMISSING ITS CARTWRIGHT
ACT, UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, AND DONNELLY
ACT CLAIMS

1

describes the presence maintained by T-Mobile in both California and New York, as well as the

2

substantial business conducted by T-Mobile in both states during the years in which defendants

3

were conspiring to fix the prices of products containing LCD panels, including, without

4

limitation, the sale of mobile wireless handsets (which contain LCD panels) to customers at its
corporate-owned retail stores, through its website, and through business-to-business sales. (See,

5

e.g., Amended Complaint ¶¶ 5-7, 26, 78, 100, 113, 163-64, 251, 289-92, 295-96, 298-99.)
6

Simply put, T-Mobile’s claims under the Cartwright Act, Unfair Competition Law, and Donnelly

7

Act do not come as any surprise to defendants. Nor will T-Mobile’s prosecution of such claims

8

prejudice defendants. Indeed, T-Mobile does not dispute that defendants should be given an

9

opportunity to complete discovery relating to its indirect purchaser claims. (See, e.g., Joint Case

10

Management Conference Statement, MDL Dkt. No. 7640, at 23-25.)

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
Master File No. C M:07-01827 SI
Individual Case No. C 3:11-02591 SI
MDL No. 1827

T-MOBILE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THE COURT’S ORDER DISMISSING ITS CARTWRIGHT
ACT, UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, AND DONNELLY
ACT CLAIMS

1
2

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, T-Mobile respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion for

3

Reconsideration, and reinstate T-Mobile’s claims under the Cartwright Act, Unfair Competition

4

Law, and Donnelly Act.

5

Dated: March 29, 2013

6

Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Jason C. Rubinstein
Kathryn Parsons Hoek (CA Bar No. 219247)
E-Mail: [e-mail]
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 950
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7
8
9
10
11

Parker C. Folse III (pro hac vice)
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Brooke A. M. Taylor (pro hac vice)
E-Mail: [e-mail]
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1201 Third Ave., Suite 3800
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

12
13
14
15
16

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

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Counsel for Plaintiff T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc.
26
27
28

5
Master File No. C M:07-01827 SI
Individual Case No. C 3:11-02591 SI
MDL No. 1827

T-MOBILE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THE COURT’S ORDER DISMISSING ITS CARTWRIGHT
ACT, UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW, AND DONNELLY
ACT CLAIMS