Compucom Systems Inc v. Hitachi Ltd et al

Filing 152

CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, MDL No. 1917. (tnS) (Filed on 4/18/2017) [Transferred from California Northern 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