Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486-146/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS

MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION No. M 02-1486 PJH

_______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) 

This Document Relates to:

Petro Computer Systems, Inc., et al. v.

Micron Technology, Inc., et al. 

C 05-2472 PJH

_______________________________/

Before the court is the motion of plaintiffs for certification of certain orders of the

court for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The motion is unopposed

by defendants.

The general rule is that an appellate court should not review a ruling from a district

court until after entry of final judgment. Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 474

(1978). An exception to this general rule appears in 28 U.S.C. § 1292, which provides that

certification of an interlocutory order for appeal is appropriate when the order involves a

controlling question of law, as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion,

and where a resolution thereof will materially advance the termination of the litigation. 28

U.S.C. § 1292(b). The party seeking certification of an interlocutory appeal has the burden

to show the presence of these exceptional circumstances. Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S. at

474-75.

The court finds that this case meets all three criteria stated above for the reasons

advanced by plaintiffs and those acknowledged by the court in the orders plaintiff seeks to

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1849 Filed 03/28/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

appeal. 

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. The court certifies for appeal the following

issues decided in the June 1, 2007 order granting in part and denying in part defendants’

motion for judgment on the pleadings and the January 29, 2008 order granting in part and

denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss:

1. Whether the requirements for standing under federal antitrust law set forth in

Assoc. Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S.

519 (1983), apply to indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ state law antitrust claims.

2. If so, whether indirect purchasers, who are not participants in the same

market in which the defendants have allegedly fixed prices, but are

participants in a related and interlinked market, have antitrust standing in light

of American Ad. Mgmt. v. GTE, 190 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 1990) and Bhan v.

NME Hosps., Inc., 772 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir. 1985).

3. Whether this court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ state law antitrust claims, based on

their indirect purchases of DRAM as a component of computers, for lack of

antitrust standing was erroneous.

The hearing on this motion scheduled for April 2, 2008 is VACATED. Should the

court of appeals permit the appeal to be taken, the parties shall contact the court to arrange

a case management conference to discuss whether a stay should be entered.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: March 28, 2008

____________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1849 Filed 03/28/08 Page 2 of 2