Rockwell Automation Inc v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 18

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ROCKWELL AUTOMATION'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE DEFENDANT CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES, LTD. THROUGH ITS U.S. COUNSEL(6042) in case 3:07-md-01827-SI; (14) in case 3:12-cv-02495-SI (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/10/2012)

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

No. C 12-2495 SI
This Order Relates To:

15
16

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF
ROCKWELL AUTOMATION’S MOTION
FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING
PLAINTIFF TO SERVE DEFENDANT
CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES, LTD.
THROUGH ITS U.S. COUNSEL

ROCKWELL AUTOMATION,
Plaintiff,

13
14

No. M 07-1827 SI
MDL No. 1827

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

/

17
Plaintiff has filed a motion to serve a foreign defendant, Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., through
18
its U.S. counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 719
1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument.
20
The Court has previously heard and granted a number of similar motions in this MDL. See, e.g.,
21
Order Re: Defendant Nexgen MediaTech Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process;
22
Quashing Service; and Granting Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion to Serve Nexgen Through its
23
Counsel Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3), Master Docket No. 725 (Nov. 19, 2008); see also Master Docket
24
Nos. 1309, 1657, 1779, 2109, 2532, 2584, 2747, 2748, 2825, 3079, 3217, 3345, 3394, 3443, 3654, 3655,
25
4785. Chunghwa has opposed these motions to preserve its objections to this manner of service, but has
26
recognized this 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 July 25, 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). Master Docket No. 6042. Absent objection from Chunghwa, plaintiff may

20

serve Chunghwa through counsel after July 25, 2012.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July10, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Specifically, Chunghwa’s opposition briefs have argued that 1) plaintiffs have not met the
requirements for invoking alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3); and 2) service through its U.S. counsel
violates due process.
2