Rockwell Automation Inc v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 66

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ROCKWELL AUTOMATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS LG DISPLAYAMERICA, INC. AND LG DISPLAY CO.,LTD.'S COUNTERCLAIMS AND STRIKETHEIR DEFENSES CONCERNING DUPLICATIVE RECOVERY (No. C 12-2495 SI) 7116 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/15/2013)

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

This Order Relates to:

11

Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. AU Optronics
Corp., et al., C 12-02495 SI

12
13

/

No. M 07-1827 SI
MDL. No. 1827
Case Nos. C 12-02495 SI
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO DISMISS LG DISPLAY
AMERICA, INC. AND LG DISPLAY CO.,
LTD.’S COUNTERCLAIMS AND STRIKE
THEIR DEFENSES CONCERNING
DUPLICATIVE RECOVERY

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Now before the Court is a motion by plaintiff Rockwell Automation, Inc. to dismiss the
counterclaims of defendants LG Display America, Inc. and LG Display Co., Ltd. (collectively, “LG”)
and to strike LG’s defenses concerning duplicative recovery. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the
Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and therefore VACATES the
hearing currently scheduled for January 18, 2013. Having considered the parties’ papers, and for good
cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s motion. Docket No. 7116.
Plaintiff seeks to dismiss the counterclaims that LG has asserted to avoid so-called “duplicative
recovery”and to strike LG’s defenses regarding the same. Motion at 5. Plaintiff’s motion largely
mirrors a motion submitted by other Direct Action Plaintiffs (“DAPs”), with the exception that part of
this motion involves Wisconsin law rather than the law of other states involved in the earlier motion.
See Direct Action Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss LG’s Counterclaims and Strike their Defenses
Concerning Duplicative Recovery, Docket No. 6227. In its Opposition, LG incorporates its earlier
response to the motion by DAPs, continuing to assert that its counterclaims and defenses are grounded
in constitutional law, and maintains that Wisconsin law supports its state law counterclaim and

1

affirmative defense.
As the Court has held three times before, LG has not provided a legal basis, under federal or state

3

law, for its “violation of laws of duplicative recovery” defense or for its related counterclaims.1 See

4

Order Regarding Trial Structure, Docket No. 5518 (April 20, 2012); Order Denying LG Display

5

America, Inc. and LG Display Co., Ltd.’s Motion for Leave to Amend, Docket No. 5795 (May25, 2012);

6

see also In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litig., 643 F. Supp. 2d 1143, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (“Duplicative

7

recovery is, in many if not all cases alleging a nationwide conspiracy with both direct and indirect

8

purchaser classes, a necessary consequence that flows from indirect purchaser recovery.”) (quoting In

9

re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 516 F. Supp. 2d. 1072, 1089 (N.D. Cal.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

2

2007)). The Court finds no reason to depart from its previous rulings. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

11

plaintiff’s motion. Docket No. 7116.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: January 15, 2013

16
17

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In its Opposition, LG acknowledges that “the Court has ruled on questions similar to those
presented here.” Opposition at 2, n. 1. LG presents its arguments, however, to “preserve its rights on
appeal.” Id.
2