The AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 17

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AASI CREDITOR LIQUIDATING TRUST'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE DEFENDANT CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES, LTD. THROUGH ITS U.S. COUNSEL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/9/2012)

Download PDF
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 / United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 No. C 11-5781 SI This Order Relates To: 16 17 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AASI CREDITOR LIQUIDATING TRUST’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE DEFENDANT CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES, LTD. THROUGH ITS U.S. COUNSEL THE AASI CREDITOR LIQUIDATING TRUST, BY AND THROUGH KENNETH A. WELT, LIQUIDATING TRUSTEE, Plaintiff, 14 15 No. M 07-1827 SI MDL No. 1827 v. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. / 18 Plaintiff has filed a motion to serve a foreign defendant, Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., through 19 its U.S. counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). The Court has previously heard 20 and granted a number of similar motions in this MDL. See, e.g., Order Re: Defendant Nexgen 21 MediaTech Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process; Quashing Service; and 22 Granting Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion to Serve Nexgen Through its Counsel Under Fed. R. Civ. 23 P. 4(f)(3), Master Docket No. 725 (Nov. 19, 2008); see also Master Docket Nos. 1309, 1657, 1779, 24 2109, 2532, 2584, 2747, 2748, 2825, 3079, 3217, 3345, 3394, 3443, 3654, 3655, 4785. Chunghwa has 25 opposed these motions to preserve its objections to this manner of service, but has recognized this 26 Court’s inclination to permit service through its U.S. counsel. 27 Given the number of these motions, the Court is well acquainted with the content of Chunghwa’s 28 1 opposition.1 In order to save Chunghwa the time and expense of filing another opposition brief, the 2 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, the 8 Court finds that service through its U.S. counsel will fully comport with due process. See FMAC Loan 9 Receivables v. Dagra, 228 F.R.D. 531, 534 (E.D. Va. 2005) (finding service on defendant through his 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 3 attorney complied with due process because the numerous motions filed by defendant’s attorney made 11 it “abundantly clear” that the two had been in constant communication). 12 Absent further objection from Chunghwa, plaintiff may serve Chunghwa through its U.S. 13 counsel after March 2, 2012. If Chunghwa has a specific objection not already addressed by the prior 14 orders of this Court, it may file an opposition before that date. 15 16 CONCLUSION 17 For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s 18 motion to serve Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. through its U.S. counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of 19 Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). Docket No. 14 in 11-5781; Docket No. 4771 in 07-1827. Absent objection 20 from Chunghwa, plaintiff may serve Chunghwa through counsel after March, 2012. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 9, 2012 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 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. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?