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

Filing 28

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF T-MOBILE'S MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE DEFENDANTS CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES, LTD. AND TATUNG CO. THROUGH THEIR U.S. COUNSEL (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2011)

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 11-2591 SI

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

This Order Relates To:

15
16

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF TMOBILE’S MOTION FOR ORDER
AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE
DEFENDANTS CHUNGHWA PICTURE
TUBES, LTD. AND TATUNG CO.
THROUGH THEIR U.S. COUNSEL

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

13
14

No. M 07-1827 SI
MDL No. 1827

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

/

17
Plaintiff T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc. has filed a motion to serve two foreign defendants, Chunghwa
18
Picture Tubes, Ltd. and Tatung Co., through their U.S. counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
19
Procedure 4(f)(3). The Court has previously heard and granted a number of similar motions in this
20
MDL. See, e.g., Order Re: Defendant Nexgen MediaTech Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient
21
Service of Process; Quashing Service; and Granting Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion to Serve
22
Nexgen Through its Counsel Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3), Nov. 19, 2008 (Master Docket No. 725); see
23
also Master Docket Nos. 1309, 1657, 1779, 2109, 2532, 2584, 2747, 2748, and 2825. Both Chunghwa
24
and Tatung have opposed these motions to preserve their objections to this manner of service, but have
25
recognized this Court’s inclination to permit service through their 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 both Chunghwa and Tatung the time and expense of filing another

2

opposition brief, 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, as

8

well as the close corporate ties between Chunghwa and Tatung, the Court finds that service through their

9

U.S. counsel will fully comport with due process. See FMAC Loan Receivables v. Dagra, 228 F.R.D.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

531, 534 (E.D. Va. 2005) (finding service on defendant through his attorney complied with due process

11

because the numerous motions filed by defendant’s attorney made it “abundantly clear” that the two had

12

been in constant communication); see also Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Serve Defendants

13

Chunghwa Picture Tubes and Tatung Company Through Their U.S. Counsel, May 28, 2010 (Master

14

Docket No. 1779) (describing corporate ties between Chunghwa and Tatung).

15

Absent further objection from Chunghwa or Tatung, plaintiff may serve Chunghwa and Tatung

16

through their U.S. counsel after July 29, 2011. If Chunghwa or Tatung have a specific objection not

17

already addressed by the prior orders of this Court, they may file an opposition before that date.

18
19
20
21
22

//

23

//

24

//

25
26
1

27
28

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. Tatung is represented by the same counsel as Chunghwa, and has relied
on the same arguments.
2

1

CONCLUSION

2

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

3

motion to serve Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. and Tatung Co. through their U.S. counsel pursuant to

4

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). Docket No. 27 in C 11-2591; Docket No. 3029 in M 07-1827.

5

Absent objection from Chunghwa and Tatung, plaintiff may serve Chunghwa and Tatung through

6

counsel after July 29, 2011.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 12, 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3