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

Filing 71

RESPONSE (re 60 MOTION to Dismiss ) to Sanyo's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed byT-Mobile USA Inc. (Taylor, Brooke) (Filed on 1/17/2012)

1
2
3
4

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]

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 T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc.
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

13
14
15

IN RE TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL)
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

16
17
18

This Document Relates to
Case C 3:11-02591 SI
T-MOBILE U.S.A., INC.,

19

Plaintiff,

20

v.
21
22
23

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

T-MOBILE U.S.A., INC.’S
OPPOSITION TO SANYO
CONSUMER ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
T-MOBILE’S AMENDED
COMPLAINT

AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

24

Date:
Time:
Location:

February 3, 2012
9:00 AM
Courtroom 10, 19th Floor
450 Golden Gate Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94102

25
26
27
28

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

OPPOSITION TO SANYO CONSUMER
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.’S MOTION TO DISMISS

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Page(s)

3
4

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1

5

ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 1

6
7

T-MOBILE HAS ALLEGED LEGALLY SUFFICIENT FEDERAL ANTITRUST
CLAIMS AGAINST SANYO ............................................................................................ 1

8

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 6

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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

OPPOSITION TO SANYO CONSUMER
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.’S MOTION TO DISMISS

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

Page(s)

3

CASES

4

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544 (2007) ................................................................................................................1,5

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan,
792 F.2d 896 (9th Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................2, 5
Target Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp. et al.,
Dkt. No. 3362 (Aug. 24, 2011) .................................................................................................3
In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig.,
599 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .............................................................................1, 2, 3
U.S. Audio & Copy Corp. v. Philips Bus. Sys. Inc.,
Nos. C-81-4236 & C-82-3205, 1983 WL 1818 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 1983) ...............................1
United States v. Little,
753 F.2d 1420 (9th Cir. 1984) ...................................................................................................1
Usher v. City of Los Angeles,
828 F.2d 556 (9th Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................2, 5

18

STATUTES & OTHER AUTHORITIES

19

FED. R. CIV. P. 8 ...........................................................................................................................1, 5

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

ii
28

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

OPPOSITION TO SANYO CONSUMER
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.’S MOTION TO DISMISS

1

Plaintiff T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc. (“T-Mobile”) respectfully submits this

2

memorandum of law in opposition to Sanyo Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd.’s (“Sanyo”) motion

3

to dismiss T-Mobile’s amended complaint.

4

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

5

Sanyo’s Motion to Dismiss T-Mobile’s Amended Complaint (“Am. Cpl.”) is

6

largely a retread of arguments that this Court has rejected on numerous occasions. Sanyo argues

7

that T-Mobile’s allegations against it are not sufficiently specific under the Supreme Court’s

8

decision in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), because they do not specifically

9

allege facts particular to each defendant. (See, e.g., Memorandum of Points and Authorities in

10

Support of Sanyo’s Motion to Dismiss T-Mobile’s Amended Complaint (“Sanyo Br.”) at 2-3.)

11

This Court has already rejected this argument several times in related cases in this MDL. Sanyo

12

offers no reason for why this Court should rule any differently here. Therefore, T-Mobile

13

respectfully requests that the Court deny Sanyo’s motion in its entirety.

14

ARGUMENT

15

T-MOBILE HAS ALLEGED LEGALLY SUFFICIENT
FEDERAL ANTITRUST CLAIMS AGAINST SANYO

16
17

As this Court has noted, “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that a

18

complaint contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

19

relief.” In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., 599 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1183 (N.D. Cal.

20

2009) (citation and internal punctuation omitted). Thus, while “[t]he complaint must contain

21

sufficient factual allegations ‘to raise a right to relief above the speculative level’ . . . neither

22

Twombly nor the Court’s prior order requires elaborate fact pleading.” Id. at 1184. 1 And of

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

See also U.S. Audio & Copy Corp. v. Philips Bus. Sys. Inc., Nos. C-81-4236 & C-82-3205, 1983 WL
1818, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 1983) (denying motion for summary judgment in antitrust case on ground
that “[o]nce PBSI creates a material issue of fact as to the existence of a conspiracy to restrain trade, it
need produce only slight evidence to show that Audio was a member of the conspiracy”); United States v.
Little, 753 F.2d 1420, 1448 (9th Cir. 1984) (“Once the conspiracy was established, only slight evidence
was required to establish [defendant’s] connection with the conspiracy.”).

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

OPPOSITION TO SANYO CONSUMER
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.’S MOTION TO DISMISS

1

course, in considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept all allegations in the complaint as

2

true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792

3

F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986); Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987).

4

Applying these standards, this Court has consistently rejected attempts by

5

Defendants to dismiss complaints on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to adequately

6

allege each defendant’s role in the alleged conspiracy. Defendants argued years ago that the

7

class complaints should be dismissed because: (1) they “lump together the twenty-six named

8

defendants” in “corporate family groups;” (2) their allegations that “‘each employee[] or agent[]’

9

of any corporate [d]efendant [is] the . . . representative of every entity in that [d]efendant’s

10

putative corporate family” are conclusory and do not suffice to “implicat[e] each of the entities

11

in [a] corporate family;” and (3) they “make[] the conclusory assertion that an agency

12

relationship existed as to all members of a . . . corporate family . . . .” (See Joint Mot. to Dismiss

13

Direct Purchaser Pls.’ First Am. Consol. Compl., Jan. 9, 2009, Dkt. No. 779, at 9-12.) 2 This

14

Court rejected the Defendants’ argument, holding that:

15

[T]he amended consolidated complaints more than adequately
allege the involvement of each defendant and put defendants on
notice of the claims against them. Contrary to defendants’
suggestion, neither Twombly nor the Court’s prior order requires
elaborate fact pleading . . . . The amended complaints add detail
about numerous illicit conspiratorial communications between and
among defendants, and facts of the guilty pleas entered by four
defendants . . . . The complaints contain additional specific
information about the group and bilateral meetings by which the
alleged price-fixing conspiracy was effectuated . . . . The
complaint[s] also allege[] which types of meetings the defendants
and coconspirators participated in, and in some instances include[]
more detail such as the year of a meeting and other meeting
participants.

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

2

Unless otherwise noted, all “Dkt. No.” references concern filings made in In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel)
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1827, Master File No. M:07-01827 SI.

2
28

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

OPPOSITION TO SANYO CONSUMER
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.’S MOTION TO DISMISS

1

In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litig., 599 F. Supp. 2d at 1184 (citations omitted). The Court then

2

rejected the Defendants’ contention that the class complaints “do not differentiate between

3

related corporate entities,” pointing to allegations that: (1) “the conspiracy was implemented by

4

subsidiaries and distributors within a corporate family;” (2) “individual participants entered into

5

agreements on behalf of, and reported these meetings and discussions to, their respective

6

corporate families;” and (3) “individual participants in conspiratorial meetings and discussions

7

did not always know the corporate affiliation of their counterparts, nor did they distinguish

8

between the entities within a corporate family.” Id. at 1184-85 (citations omitted).

9

Recently, the Court has reasserted its holding in connection with similar

10

challenges made in related litigations. Thus, in Target Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp. et al., the

11

Court noted its earlier holding in the class cases, and held,

12

[Target’s First Amended Complaint was similarly sufficient
because it] alleges that the alleged conspiracy was organized at the
highest level of the defendant organizations and carried out by both
executives and subordinate employees. FAC at ¶104. It alleges
that the conspiracy was implemented by subsidiaries and
distributors within a corporate family, and that “individual
participants entered into agreements on behalf of, and reported
these meetings and discussions to, their respective corporate
families.” FAC at ¶156. Target also alleges that “the individual
participants in conspiratorial meetings and discussions did not
always know the corporate affiliation of their counterparts, nor did
they distinguish between the entities within a corporate family.”
FAC at ¶156. In addition, Target’s FAC contains a detailed
description of actions taken in furtherance of the conspiracy both
by defendants and their American subsidiaries. See FAC at ¶¶103124, 125-34.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Dkt. No. 3362 (Aug. 24, 2011), at 4 (citations omitted). 3

23
24

T-Mobile’s Amended Complaint contains essentially the same allegations
regarding the Defendants. (Compare Target FAC (Dkt. No. 2783, May 18, 2011) ¶ 104 with

25
26
27

3

(See also Dkt. Nos. 3346 at 3-4 (Aug. 23, 2011); 3359 at 7-8 (Aug. 24, 2011); 3396 at 8-9 (Aug 29,
2011); 3590 at 3-4 (Sept. 15, 2011); and 4145 at 1-2 (Nov. 15, 2011).)

3
28

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

OPPOSITION TO SANYO CONSUMER
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.’S MOTION TO DISMISS

1

T-Mobile Am Cpl. ¶ 100; Target FAC ¶ 156 with T-Mobile Am. Cpl. ¶ 190; and Target FAC

2

¶¶ 103-134 with T-Mobile Am. Cpl. ¶¶ 100-156.) T-Mobile also specifically alleges both

3

Sanyo’s direct and imputed participation in the price-fixing conspiracy in the same detail that

4

this Court held to be sufficient in its prior decisions. Specifically, T-Mobile alleges that: ·

5

•

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

•

13
14

“Prior to 2004, co-conspirator Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., owned and
operated Sanyo Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd. In 2004, Seiko Epson
Corporation and Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. (including its subsidiary Sanyo
Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd.) formed a joint venture company, Sanyo
Epson Imaging Devices Corporation. This joint venture was formed from
a combination of Seiko Epson’s D-TFD LCD and STN LCD businesses
and Sanyo’s LTPS TFT LCD and amorphous silicon TFT LCD
businesses. After the Conspiracy Period, Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices
Corporation became Epson Imaging Devices Corporation, also a
defendant. During the Conspiracy Period, Sanyo Consumer Electronics
Co., Ltd. manufactured, sold, and/or distributed LCD Panels and/or LCD
Products throughout the United States and elsewhere.” (Am. Cpl. ¶ 70.)·
“Defendant Sanyo Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd. . . . participated in the
conspiracy through the actions of its officers, employees, and
representatives acting with actual or apparent authority.” (Am. Cpl. ¶ 71.)

•

REDACTED

15
16
17

•

REDACTED

18
19
20
21
22

•

REDACTED

23
24
25
26
27

4
28

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

OPPOSITION TO SANYO CONSUMER
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.’S MOTION TO DISMISS

1

•

REDACTED

2
3
4

•

REDACTED

5
6
7

Sanyo ignores the Court’s many previous rulings on what constitutes adequate

8

pleading under Twombly and instead devotes much of its motion to disputing the veracity of the

9

individual allegations against it – a task that is obviously irrelevant at this stage of the case. For

10

instance, Sanyo argues that the allegation in paragraph 108 of T-Mobile’s Amended Complaint

11

“could also be interpreted as legitimate, legal conduct” (Sanyo Br. at 4), and that the conduct

12

alleged in paragraph 125 of the Amended Complaint “can be a legitimate, legal practice” (Sanyo

13

Br. at 5). The fact that Sanyo contests these facts merely highlights the factual issues that will

14

need to be developed through discovery and tested at trial. Now is not the time to test the facts

15

underlying T-Mobile’s allegations. At the pleading stage, all facts are construed in the light most

16

favorable to the plaintiff and are taken as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. NL Indus.,

17

792 F.2d at 898; Usher, 828 F.2d at 561. Thus, the only question before the Court is whether

18

T-Mobile has alleged sufficient facts to meet the pleading standards under Rule 8 and Twombly.

19

As this Court has repeatedly held, the types of allegations that T-Mobile makes are more than

20

sufficient to meet those standards.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

5
28

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

OPPOSITION TO SANYO CONSUMER
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.’S MOTION TO DISMISS

1
2

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, T-Mobile respectfully urges the Court to deny

3

Sanyo’s motion in its entirety.

4

Dated: January 17, 2012

5

Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Brooke A. M. Taylor
David Orozco (CA Bar No. 220732)
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]

6
7
8
9
10

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]

11
12
13
14
15

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]

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

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

25
26
27

6
28

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

OPPOSITION TO SANYO CONSUMER
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.’S MOTION TO DISMISS