Sony Electronics Inc. et al v. Hannstar Display Corp.

Filing 38

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART HANNSTAR DISPLAY CORPORATION'S SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS OR STRIKE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 6841 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 10/22/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

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

No. M 07-1827 SI
MDL No. 1827

This Order Relates To:

No. C 12-2214 SI

SONY ELECTRONICS INC.; SONY
COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA
LLC,

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND
GRANTING IN PART HANNSTAR
DISPLAY CORPORATION’S SECOND
MOTION TO DISMISS OR STRIKE
BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiffs,

14
15
16
17

v.
HANNSTAR DISPLAY CORP.,
Defendant.

/

18
Currently before the Court is HannStar Display Corporation’s second motion to dismiss or strike
19
the breach of contract claim of plaintiffs Sony Electronics Inc. and Sony Computer Entertainment
20
America LLC (“SCEA”, collectively “Sony”). That matter is currently set for a hearing on November
21
2, 2012. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without
22
oral argument and VACATES the hearing. Having considered the parties’ papers, and for good cause
23
appearing, the Court hereby DENIES HannStar’s motion to dismiss or strike the breach of contract
24
claim, but GRANTS the motion as to the diversity allegations and allows Sony leave to amend its
25
allegations regarding SCEA’s citizenship.
26
On August 27, 2012, the Court granted HannStar’s motion to dismiss or strike Sony’s breach
27
of contract and fraud claims. With respect to the breach of contract claim, the Court found that
28

1

California’s mediation and confidentiality statutes (e.g., Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(a)), did not preclude

2

Sony from pleading and pursuing a breach of contract claim based on a series of written emails that

3

Sony alleged constituted a written settlement agreement. Docket No. 26 at 3. As Sony’s complaint did

4

not adequately allege the contents of the particular emails at issue, the Court granted the motion to

5

dismiss and allowed Sony to amend to “include the contentions in Sony’s opposition papers.” Id.

6

Sony filed its amended complaint on September 7, 2012 (Docket No. 29), amending its breach

7

of contract claim and omitting the fraud claim. HannStar now moves to dismiss or strike the amended

8

breach of contract claim, raising the same arguments it made on its prior motion. See Docket No. 31.

9

HannStar also argues that Sony has failed to adequately allege the citizenship of the members of SCEA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

to establish diversity.

11

The Court finds that Sony has adequately alleged its breach of contract claim in its First

12

Amended Complaint. With respect to the citizenship of SCEA, Sony argues SCEA’s Corporate

13

Disclosure Statement (Docket No. 3) makes it clear that no Taiwanese companies or individuals are

14

members of SCEA, but that it is willing to amend the complaint to reflect these facts. See Docket No.

15

34 at 5.

16

Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss or strike the breach of contract claim, but

17

grants the motion to dismiss or strike to allow Sony to amend its allegations regarding the citizenship

18

of SCEA. The amended complaint shall be filed on or before October 31, 2012. Docket No. 31 in 12-

19

2214. Master Docket No. 6841 in 07-1827.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: October 22, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2