Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01665/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01665-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

IN RE FLASH MEMORY

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

No. C 07-0086 SBA

ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION

Over the last several months, this Court has related numerous actions to Trong Nguyen v.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., C 07-0086 (SBA). These cases involve many of the same

defendants and share overlapping factual and legal claims. The plaintiffs in these actions allege the

defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of, or allocate the market for, Flash

Memory, resulting in Flash Memory prices to be higher than they otherwise would have been. Most of

these cases asserts causes of action under section 1 of the Sherman Act; the California Cartwright Act;

the California Unfair Competition Law; and Antitrust and Unfair Competition Laws of the various

States.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that “[w]hen actions involving a common

question of law or fact are pending before the court, it . . . may order all actions consolidated . . . .” A

district court has “broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.”

Investors Research Co. v. United States Dist. Ct., 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989). Moreover, the Court

may order a consolidation of cases sua sponte. See In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th

Cir. 1987).

Accordingly, the Court finds that Trong Nguyen v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., C 07-

0086 (SBA) and the cases related to it involve common questions of fact and law. Therefore, pursuant

to Rule 42(a), those cases captioned 07-cv-2286-SBA; 07-cv-2066-SBA; 07-cv-1020-SBA; 07-cv-1147-

SBA; 07-cv-1236-SBA; 07-cv-1360-SBA; 07-cv-1388-SBA; 07-cv-1418-SBA; 07-cv-1459-SBA; 07-

cv-1460-SBA; 07-cv-1489-SBA; 07-cv-1613-SBA; 07-cv-1665-SBA; 07-cv-1680-SBA; 07-cv-1735-

SBA; 07-cv-1823-SBA; 07-cv-1829-SBA; 07-cv-3971-SBA; 07-cv-4252-SBA, are hereby consolidated

Case 4:07-cv-01665-SBA Document 11 Filed 10/17/07 Page 1 of 2
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

with Trong Nguyen v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., C 07-0086. Any future cases found by this

Court to be related to 07-0086 shall likewise be consolidated with this action. All dates and deadlines

set in any action other than in 07-0086 are VACATED. The dates and deadlines currently set in 07-

0086 shall apply to all proceedings. Counsel are instructed that this consolidated action will be known

as In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation, and all future filings shall be under Case Number 07-0086

SBA.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 16, 2007 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01665-SBA Document 11 Filed 10/17/07 Page 2 of 2