Frost v. LG Corporation et al

Filing 125

ORDER GRANTING 61 , 62 MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/21/2017. (blflc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 A. FROST, ET AL., Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 16-cv-05206-BLF ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND v. LG ELECTRONICS INC., et al., Defendants. 12 13 Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ consolidated class action complaint (“Compl.”) 14 were heard on April 20, 2017. ECF 61, 62. The Court has considered the parties’ briefing and 15 oral argument presented at the hearing. For the reasons stated on the record and below, the Court 16 GRANTS the motions with leave to amend. 17 Plaintiffs bring this class action suit alleging that the LG and Samsung defendants engaged 18 in an unlawful conspiracy to fix and suppress compensation for their employees, violating section 19 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1; the Cartwright Act, California Business & Professions Code 20 §16720, et seq.; and the New Jersey Antitrust Act, N.J. Stat Ann. § 56:9-3. Compl., ECF 48. The 21 Court finds that the complaint fails to adequately allege an actionable conspiracy at least because 22 the allegations are vague and lodged against all Defendants as a group. First, Plaintiffs rely on the 23 allegations that the LG and Samsung entities are operated by a “chaebol,” defined in the complaint 24 as “a collective of formally independent firms under the single common administrative and 25 financial control of one family.” Compl. ¶ 39, 58, 83. However, such allegations do not allege the 26 role “each Defendant played in the alleged harm” so that one could make a plausible inference that 27 there was unlawful agreement between the relevant parties. See In re iPhone Application Litig., 28 No. 11-MD-02250-LHK, 2011 WL 4403963, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011) (dismissing 1 complaint because the “generalized allegations against Defendants as a whole” failed to “identify 2 what action each Defendant took that caused Plaintiffs’ harm); In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) 3 Antitrust Litig., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1117 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (finding that “general allegations as 4 to all defendants [] is insufficient to put specific defendants on notice of the claims against them”). 5 The existence of a “chaebol” also does not automatically provide sufficient pleading of a 6 conspiracy among the member subsidiary companies. Unrelated cases referencing evidence of a 7 company’s direct control over another in a “chaebol” also cannot bolster Plaintiffs’ conspiracy 8 claims as the complaint fails to show how the facts in unrelated cases are necessarily relevant to 9 the instant case. E.g., In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. 1917, 2016 WL 7805628, at *22 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2016) (considering evidence of direct control of Samsung 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Electronics Company over Samsung SDI in an antitrust case). 12 Second, factual allegations based on a recruiter’s statement, an India Times article, an 13 email from a finance manager, while notable, do not “answer the basic questions: who, did what, 14 to whom (or with whom), where, and when.” Compl. ¶¶ 76, 79, 80; see Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., 15 Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2008). For example, with respect to a recruiter’s statement to 16 Plaintiff Frost that “[t]he two companies have an agreement that they won’t steal each other’s 17 employees,” although a specific factual allegation, it fails to support whether the alleged 18 conspiracy was to suppress compensation of employees in United States or abroad. Further, given 19 that multiple defendants are named in this case, the recruiter’s statement is insufficient on its own 20 to put specific defendants on notice of the claims against them. The allegations relating to an 21 official’s statement on the workforces in India and the finance manager’s email that Samsung does 22 not hire people from LG, do not remedy these deficiencies, either. This is true even when all the 23 allegations are considered as a whole because the factual allegations do not provide sufficient 24 information on “who, did what, to whom (or with whom), where, and when” of the alleged 25 unlawful agreement. Cf. In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., 856 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1118 26 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (noting that “plaintiffs should be given the full benefit of their proof without 27 tightly compartmentalizing the various factual components and wiping the slate clean after 28 scrutiny of each . . . [T]he character and effect of a conspiracy are not to be judged by 2 1 dismembering it and viewing its separate parts, but only by looking at it as a whole) (citing Cont’l 2 Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690, 699 (1962)). Plaintiffs’ reliance on In 3 re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig. is unpersuasive. No. 13-2420-YGR, 2014 WL 4955377, 4 at *33 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2014). The Court is mindful that “adequately pleading a conspiracy 5 claim against a particular corporate defendant does not require detailed defendant by defendant 6 allegations.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). However, the allegations must 7 still be sufficient to “draw a plausible conclusion that the individual defendant joined the 8 conspiracy and played some role.” Id. The court in In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig. 9 refused to dismiss a co-defendant because the complaints had already alleged multiple instances of a defendant company “engaging in collusive meetings,” several of which the co-defendant 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 participated. Id. at *34. In contrast, the complaint here lacks sufficient facts to support specific 12 collusive conduct by any specific actors and whether the alleged violations occurred in United 13 States. Additional factual allegations would be necessary to support a “plausible conclusion that 14 the individual defendant joined the conspiracy and played some role.” See id. at *33. 15 Lastly, the complaint provides inadequate basis for this Court to assert specific jurisdiction 16 over LG Electronics and LG Display. Similar to the discussion above, the allegation of a 17 “chaebol” cannot substitute for factual pleadings showing that the U.S. LG defendants are agents 18 or alter egos of the Korean LG defendants. “[U]nder any standard for finding an agency 19 relationship, the parent company must have the right to substantially control its subsidiary’s 20 activities.” Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1015, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Doe 21 v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 925 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds (“The existence 22 of a relationship between a parent company and its subsidiaries is not sufficient to establish 23 personal jurisdiction over the parent on the basis of the subsidiaries’ minimum contacts with the 24 forum”). Further, given that the allegations of the conspiracy are deficient as set forth above, they 25 are also insufficient to demonstrate that the Korean LG companies directed their conduct 26 specifically at the United States. 27 Plaintiffs have requested leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery. This Court has “broad 28 discretion” to permit or deny discovery to aid in determining whether it has personal jurisdiction. 3 1 Butcher’s Union Local No. 498 v. SDC Investment, Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 540 (9th Cir.1986) (trial 2 court has “broad discretion to permit or deny discovery”). “Discovery should ordinarily be 3 granted where ‘pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a 4 more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary.’” Butcher’s Union, 788 F.2d at 540 (quoting 5 Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 n.1 (9th Cir. 1977)). Here, the 6 Court finds that that Plaintiffs’ claims are colorable and it is not yet a foregone conclusion that 7 discovery would be futile. Plaintiffs at the hearing provided a general outline of topics on which 8 they seek discovery from the LG defendants, including their recruiting practices for U.S. positions. 9 This proposal at a high level appears reasonable to the Court and could elicit information as to 10 whether there is specific jurisdiction over LG Electronics and LG Display. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiffs and LG Defendants to meet and confer on the United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 specifics of a plan for jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiffs and LG Defendants shall file on or 13 before May 26, 2017, a joint submission of no more than five pages, setting forth the jurisdictional 14 discovery plan and a deadline for filing an amended complaint. The parties should indicate to the 15 Court whether a telephonic case management conference is requested in connection with this joint 16 submission. For the foregoing reasons, Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to dismiss with leave to 17 18 amend. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 23 24 Dated: April 21, 2017 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 4

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?