Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-480/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL No. 1917

Case No. 07-cv-5944 JST

ORDER REQUIRING 

APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF 

DEFAULT RE IRICO ENTITIES

This Order Relates To:

All Indirect Purchaser Actions

On June 28, 2016, the Court ordered any plaintiff in this consolidated MDL with claims 

against defendants Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd. and Irico Group Corporation (the “Irico 

Entities”) to advise the Court in writing by July 5, 2016 of the following: (1) the date on which it 

filed its operative claims against the Irico Entities; (2) whether the Irico Entities have been served 

with those claims; and (3) whether the Irico Entities have answered those claims. ECF No. 4694. If 

the answer to the third question was negative, the filing party was ordered to show cause why it had 

not requested entry of default. Id. 

On July 5, 2016, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (“IPPs”) filed a response, indicating that 

they had filed and served claims against the Irico Entities, and that the Irico Entities had not 

answered those claims, but that the IPPs had not sought entry of default. ECF No. 4076. They 

stated that entry of default would have been premature because the damages to be sought from the 

Irico Entities could not be known until the conclusion of the litigation against other defendants, and 

that entry of default would have prejudiced the IPPs. 

The Court concludes that there is no reason the IPPs cannot seek entry of default against the 

Irico Entities now. The IPPs first argument conflates entry of default with entry of default 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4722 Filed 07/18/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

judgment. Id. at 3. “The two concepts are distinct and must be treated separately.” United States v. 

Topeka Livestock Auction, Inc., 392 F. Supp. 944, 950 (N.D. Ind. 1975). The first is a ministerial 

act by the clerk of the court once a party has satisfied the requirements of Rule 55(a); the second 

usually requires (and in this case will require) action by the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). “Damages 

must be fixed before an entry of default can become a default judgment[.]” 10A Charles Alan 

Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 2682 (3d ed. 1998) (footnotes omitted). In any 

event, now that the IPP class settlement has been approved, it is time for the IPPs to reduce their 

remaining claims to judgment. The IPPs’ second argument relies on authority from another district 

that does not apply here. Id. (citing S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 55-1). 

The IPPs are ordered to file a request for entry of default judgment within ten days of this 

order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4722 Filed 07/18/16 Page 2 of 2