Tech Data Corporation et al v. Hitachi, Ltd. et al
Filing
125
CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, MDL No. 1917. (tnS) (Filed on 4/18/2017) [Transferred from cand on 4/20/2017.]
Case MDL No. 1917 Document 99 Filed 04/18/17 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
MDL No. 1917
(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)
CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER
The transferee court in this litigation has advised the Panel that coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings in the action(s) on this conditional remand order have been completed and that remand
to the transferor court(s), as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a), is appropriate.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action(s) on this conditional remand order be remanded to
its/their respective transferor court(s).
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the transmittal of this order to the transferee clerk for
filing shall be stayed 7 days from the date of this order. If any party files a notice of opposition with
the Clerk of the Panel within this 7−day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the
Panel. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the office of the Clerk for the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.4(a), the parties shall furnish the Clerk for
the Northern District of California with a stipulation or designation of the contents of the record to
be remanded.
FOR THE PANEL:
Apr 18, 2017
Jeffery N. Lüthi
Clerk of the Panel
Case MDL No. 1917 Document 99 Filed 04/18/17 Page 2 of 2
IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
MDL No. 1917
SCHEDULE FOR CRO
TRANSFEREE
DIST DIV. C.A.NO.
TRANSFEROR
DIST DIV. C.A.NO.
CAN
3
13−00157
FLM
8
12−02795
CAN
3
11−06275
FLS
0
11−62437
CAN
3
13−05727
FLS
0
13−62482
CAN
3
11−06276
FLS
9
11−81263
CAN
3
13−05726
FLS
9
13−81174
CAN
3
12−02649
NYE
1
11−05529
CAN
3
12−02648
NYE
1
11−05530
CAN
3
11−01656
NYE
2
11−00831
CAN
3
13−05668
NYE
2
13−06323
CAN
3
13−05724
NYE
2
13−06325
CAN
3
13−05725
NYE
2
13−06327
CAN
3
11−06396
TXN
3
11−03130
CAN
3
11−06397
WAW
2
11−01909
CASE CAPTION
Tech Data Corporation et al v. Hitachi, Ltd. et
al
Interbond Corporation of America v. Hitachi,
Ltd. et al
Interbond Corporation of America v.
Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. et
al
Office Depot, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd. et al
Office Depot, Inc. v. TECHNICOLOR SA et
al
Schultze Agency Services, LLC et al v.
Hitachi, Ltd. et al
P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation
et al v. Hitachi Ltd. et al
Electrograph Systems, Inc. et al v. Hitachi
Ltd. et al
Schultze Agency Services, LLC v.
Technicolor SA et al
Electrograph Systems, Inc. et al v.
Technicolor SA et al
P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation
et al v. Technicolor SA et al
Compucom Systems Inc v. Hitachi Ltd et al
Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Hitachi, Ltd.
et al
Case 3:07-cv-05944-JSTDocument 99-1 Filed 04/18/17 Page 1 of 4 4
Case MDL No. 1917
Document 5137 Filed 04/05/17 Page 1 of
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
This Document Relates To:
Electrograph Sys., Inc., et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd.,
et al., No. 11-cv-01656;
Electrograph Sys., Inc., et al. v. Technicolor
SA, et al., No. 13-cv-05724;
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Interbond Corp. of Am. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et
al., No. 11-cv-06275;
Interbond Corp. of Am. v. Technicolor SA, et
al., No. 13-cv-05727;
Office Depot, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., No.
11-cv-06276;
Office Depot, Inc. v. Technicolor SA, et al.,
No. 13-cv-05726;
20
21
22
23
24
CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et
al., No. 11-cv-06396;
Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et
al., No. 11-cv-06397;
P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp., et al.
v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., No. 12-cv-02648;
25
26
27
28
P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp., et al.
v. Technicolor SA, et al., No. 13-cv-05725;
Schultze Agency Servs., LLC v. Hitachi, Ltd.,
et al., No. 12-cv-02649;
Case No. 07-cv-05944-JST
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
SUGGESTING REMAND
Re: ECF No. 4985
Case 3:07-cv-05944-JSTDocument 99-1 Filed 04/18/17 Page 2 of 4 4
Case MDL No. 1917
Document 5137 Filed 04/05/17 Page 2 of
Schultze Agency Servs., LLC v. Technicolor
SA, et al., No. 13-cv-05668;
1
2
Tech Data Corp., et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et
al., No. 13-cv-00157.
3
4
5
Before the Court is the Motion Suggesting Remand brought by Electrograph Systems, Inc.,
6
Electrograph Technologies Corp., Office Depot, Inc., CompuCom Systems, Inc., Interbond
8
Corporation of America, P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, ABC Appliance, Inc.,
9
Schultze Agency Services LLC on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and Tweeter Newco, LLC, Tech
10
Data Corporation and Tech Data Product Management, Inc., and Costco Wholesale Corporation’s
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
(the “Remand Plaintiffs”). The Court will grant the motion.
12
This multi-district antitrust case concerning cathode ray tube technology has now reached
13
the end of pretrial proceedings. On April 12, 2016, the Remand Plaintiffs filed an administrative
14
motion for leave to file the present motion, ECF No. 4555, which the Court granted. ECF No.
15
4618. Then, on October 26, 2016, they filed the present motion suggesting remand. ECF No.
16
4985. Defendants oppose the motion. ECF No. 5011.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the JPML) may transfer actions from
17
18
various districts to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. 28 U.S.C.
19
§ 1407(a). The JPML must remand those actions to the transferor courts “no later than the
20
conclusion of pretrial proceedings in the transferee court.” Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss
21
Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 36-37 (1998).
The Remand Plaintiffs request an order suggesting that their cases be remanded to the
22
23
transferor courts, to be entered by the Court upon resolution of seven identified motions that were
24
outstanding at the time Plaintiffs filed the present motion,1 because at that time “all MDL pretrial
25
proceedings in the Remand Plaintiffs’ cases will be complete.” ECF No. 4985 at 3.
26
27
1
28
Five were summary judgment motions. See ECF Nos. 2976, 2984, 3001, 3037, 3040. Two were
Daubert motions. See ECF Nos. 3170, 3172.
2
Case 3:07-cv-05944-JSTDocument 99-1 Filed 04/18/17 Page 3 of 4 4
Case MDL No. 1917
Document 5137 Filed 04/05/17 Page 3 of
The Court agrees. Because those seven motions are now resolved2 and pretrial
1
2
proceedings are complete, remand is required. See Lexecon, 523 U.S at 35. The statute governing
3
multidistrict litigation procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1407, creates an obligation to remand actions “at or
4
before the conclusion” of pretrial proceedings that is “impervious to judicial discretion.” See
5
Lexecon, 523 U.S. at 35.
6
Defendants argue that the present motion is “premature” because the Remand Plaintiffs
7
filed the motion before the seven then-pending motions were resolved, although they requested
8
that the Court not suggest remand until resolution had occurred. See ECF No. 5011 at 3. It is hard
9
to see why the distinction makes any difference. Moreover, since pretrial proceedings are now
complete, remand is obligatory. See Lexecon, 523 U.S. at 35. Requiring the Remand Plaintiffs to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
refile a duplicative motion now would not promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation
12
or add anything useful to the decision-making process.
Defendants also contend that they need time after resolution of the pretrial motions, but
13
14
before the Court suggests remand, to “gaug[e] the value of any potential settlements.” ECF No.
15
5011 at 2. But 28 U.S.C. § 1407 does not require, or even mention, such a period of time. And if
16
the Court’s recent rulings have provided additional information that makes it easier for the parties
17
to settle their cases, they can finish that task whether the cases are venued in San Francisco or in
18
their original courts. Finally, after presenting their arguments, Defendants’ Opposition requests
19
only that the present motion be denied “until pre-trial proceedings are complete.” ECF No. 5011
20
at 5. They now are.
CONCLUSION
21
The Court grants the motion suggesting remand. Pursuant to Rule 10.1(b) of the Rules of
22
23
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the Court SUGGESTS that the Panel remand the
24
following actions:
For remand to the Eastern District of New York: Electrograph Sys., Inc., et al. v. Hitachi,
25
26
Ltd., et al., N.D. Cal. No. 11-cv-01656; Electrograph Sys., Inc., et al. v. Technicolor SA, et al.,
27
28
2
See ECF Nos. 5111, 5105, 5119, 4559, 5120, 5102, and 5136.
3
Case 3:07-cv-05944-JSTDocument 99-1 Filed 04/18/17 Page 4 of 4 4
Case MDL No. 1917
Document 5137 Filed 04/05/17 Page 4 of
1
N.D. Cal. No. 13-cv-05724; P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp., et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al.,
2
N.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-02648; P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp., et al. v. Technicolor SA, et
3
al., N.D. Cal. No. 13-cv-05725; Schultze Agency Servs., LLC v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., N.D. Cal. No.
4
12-cv-02649; Schultze Agency Servs., LLC v. Technicolor SA, et al., N.D. Cal. No. 13-cv-05668.
5
For remand to the Southern District of Florida: Interbond Corp. of Am. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et
6
al., N.D. Cal. No. 11-cv-06275; Interbond Corp. of Am. v. Technicolor SA, et al., N.D. Cal. No.
7
13-cv-05727; Office Depot, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., N.D. Cal. No. 11-cv-06276; Office Depot,
8
Inc. v. Technicolor SA, et al., N.D. Cal. No. 13-cv-05726.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
For remand to the Middle District of Florida: Tech Data Corp., et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al.,
N.D. Cal. No. 13-cv-00157.
For remand to the Northern District of Texas: CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et
al., N.D. Cal. No. 11-cv-06396.
For remand to the Western District of Washington: Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hitachi,
Ltd., et al., N.D. Cal. No. 11-cv-06397.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 5, 2017
17
18
19
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
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?