Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-246/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. C-07-5944-SC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW REQUESTS FOR 

EXCLUSION FROM THE 

SETTLEMENT CLASSES AND TO 

JOIN THE CLASS SETTLEMENTS

This Order Relates To:

ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS

Plaintiffs Old Comp Inc., RadioShack Corp., Unisys Corp., and 

ViewSonic Corp. (collectively, the "Movants"), all plaintiffs that 

had opted out of various settlement classes, now move to retract 

their exclusion from those settlement classes in order to 

participate in the settlements. ECF No. 2403 ("Mot."). They "seek 

to streamline this litigation by including their claims in the 

direct and indirect purchaser settlement classes in the abovecaptioned matter, thus avoiding additional costly opt-out actions 

against the Defendants." The motion is fully briefed, with the 

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPPs") opposing, ECF No. 2417 

("Opp'n"), and the Movants having filed a reply brief, ECF No. 2450 

("Reply"). The Court finds the motion appropriate for decision 

without oral argument, Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and DENIES it, as 

explained below.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2517 Filed 04/01/14 Page 1 of 7
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

The Movants requested exclusion from five different 

settlements that the DPPs and IPPs entered with five separate 

groups of defendants. For each settlement, the Court granted 

preliminary and final approvals, and entered judgments:

(1) the DPP settlement with Defendant Chunghwa 

Picture Tube, Ltd. ("CPT") and affiliates for 

$10 million, finalized at the same time as the 

DPP settlement with Defendant Koninklijke 

Philips Electronics, N.V. and affiliates 

("Philips") for $15 million (after opt-out 

reduction);1

(2) the DPP settlement with Defendant Panasonic 

Corporation and affiliates ("Panasonic") for 

$17.5 million;2

(3) the DPP settlement with Defendant LG 

Electronics, Ltd. and affiliates ("LG") for $25

million;3

(4) the DPP settlement with Defendant Toshiba 

Corporation and affiliates ("Toshiba") for 

$13.5 million;4 and

(5) the IPP settlement with Defendant CPT and 

affiliates for $10 million.5

Specifically, Old Comp requested exclusion from the Chunghwa IPP 

settlement class; RadioShack requested exclusion from the Chunghwa 

IPP settlement class; Unisys requested exclusion from the 

 1 ECF Nos. 1179 (CPT/Philips preliminary approval), 1412 

(CPT/Philips final approval), 1413 (Philips judgment), 1414 (CPT 

judgment).

2 ECF Nos. 1333 (Panasonic preliminary approval), 1508 (Panasonic 

final approval), 1509 (Panasonic judgment);

3 ECF Nos. 1441 (LG preliminary approval), 1621 (LG final 

approval), 1622 (LG judgment).

4 ECF Nos. 1603 (Toshiba preliminary approval), 1791 (final 

approval), 1792 (Toshiba judgment).

5 ECF Nos. 991 (IPP-CPT preliminary approval), 1105 (IPP-CPT final 

approval), 1106 (IPP-CPT judgment).

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2517 Filed 04/01/14 Page 2 of 7
3

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

CPT/Philips, Panasonic, LG, and Toshiba DPP settlement classes; and 

ViewSonic requested exclusion from all five settlement classes. 

Mot. at 3 n.1 & Ex. A. There has been no distribution of 

settlement proceeds yet, so the entire amount of the settlements is 

held in the Net Settlement Funds until all settlement negotiations 

have concluded and final distribution is made. 

The Movants contend that at this stage, there is no harm in 

allowing them to withdraw their requests for exclusion, since 

claims administration has not yet begun, the settlement fund has 

not yet been distributed to class members, and further settlement 

negotiations are ongoing. Mot. at 4. They claim that if their 

motion for exclusion is denied, separate litigation by them against 

the defendants who have settled will consume more Court resources 

and require the parties to spend more time and money litigating 

numerous cases. Id. They therefore ask the Court to exercise its 

equitable powers to allow them to participate in the settlements as 

class members, claiming that there will be no effect on the amount 

the settling defendants pay to the settlement classes, and no 

prejudice to any other class members. Id. at 5-6. Finally, the 

Movants argue that granting their motion would further the policies 

of Rule 23, which is to prevent the multiple relitigation of the 

same factual and legal issues. Id. at 6 (citing In re Elec. Weld 

Steel Tubing Antitrust Litig., No. 81-4737, 1982 WL 1873, at *2 

(E.D. Pa. June 30, 1982)). 

Indeed, this Court recently granted a similar motion in the 

case In re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litig., No. 

07-md-1819 CW, 2013 WL 1222690 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2013). In that 

case, Judge Wilken noted that there is no unifying standard for 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2517 Filed 04/01/14 Page 3 of 7
4

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

deciding motions like this one, but stated that courts have allowed 

opt-out plaintiffs to rejoin settlement classes if the other class 

members would receive no less than what they would have received 

had that plaintiff never opted out. Id. at *1 (citing In re Elec. 

Weld Steel Tubing, 1982 WL 1873, at *3). Judge Wilken allowed the 

opt-out plaintiff from In re SRAM to rejoin the class settlement, 

because the settlement class's counsel produced no evidence that 

the plaintiff's initial opt-out decision was exploitative, or that 

the plaintiff's requested share of the settlement distribution was 

large enough to prejudice other class members significantly. Id.

at *1-2. 

The DPPs first contend that the Movants' motion should have 

been made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, since the Court 

has entered judgment in all of the settlements mentioned above. 

The Movants respond that Rule 60 is inapplicable, because "there is 

no authority suggesting that administrative opt-out requests are 

final judgments governed by [Rule 60(b)], nor could they be because 

letters mailed to the CRT claims administrators did not ultimately 

dispose of or resolve either the Movants' claims against the 

settling defendants or any class members' claims." Reply at 2. 

Rule 60(b) permits the Court, "on motion and just terms," to 

relieve a party from a final judgment in the event of (1) mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 

evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) the satisfaction, 

release, or discharge of the judgment; or (6) any other reason 

justifying relief. The DPPs claim that Rule 60(b) governs the 

Movants' motion because each judgment, entered in the settlements 

listed above, states that no excluded or opted-out class member is 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2517 Filed 04/01/14 Page 4 of 7
5

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

entitled to settlement proceeds. Opp'n at 3 (citing ECF No. 1792 ¶

5 ("Toshiba J.")). The same warning of exclusion was provided in 

the notices mailed to class members when the Court approved the 

preliminary settlements. Id. (citing notice mailings). As the 

DPPs argue, the Movants actually seek relief from the judgments' 

exclusions. However, the Movants appear to claim that the 

judgments on the settlements in this case are not final judgments 

as to the Movants because they did not dispose of the Movants' 

claims. Reply at 2. The Court disagrees with the Movants, because 

the judgments specifically state that excluded class members cannot 

claim proceeds from the settlements. See, e.g., Toshiba J. ¶ 5. 

To modify that part of the judgment, the Court would apply Rule 60, 

and it does not find that the Movants satisfy any of Rule 60(b)'s 

requirements. Regardless of this finding, however, the Court is 

also not convinced by the Movants' main argument -- that regardless 

of Rule 60 or anything else, equitable concerns counsel allowing 

the Movants to withdraw their notices of exclusion and rejoin the 

classes.

The Movants state that court's real concerns in evaluating 

opt-in requests should be to avoid exploitation and prejudice to 

the settlement classes. Reply at 3 (citing In re SRAM, 2013 WL 

1222690, at *1). They then claim that the DPPs have not cited any 

evidence showing that other class members would be prejudiced, nor 

have they indicated that permitting this kind of opt-in tactic 

would encourage other parties to game class action settlements. 

Id. at 3-5. 

The DPPs contend that, first, the Movants have not established 

that their exclusion from the settlements poses any unfairness to 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2517 Filed 04/01/14 Page 5 of 7
6

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

them, particularly since they acted on the advice of experienced 

counsel. Opp'n at 6. Second, the DPPs argue that the value of the 

present class members' claims will be diminished if the Motion is 

granted. Id. at 7. The DPPs state that at least one Opt-In 

Plaintiff's claim could exceed $1 billion, while another stated 

that it had purchased approximately $100 million in CRT products. 

ECF No. 2417-2 ("Rushing Decl.") ¶¶ 2-3. On this point, the DPPs 

add that other opt-out plaintiffs could be emboldened if the Motion 

is granted, further reducing other class members' recoveries. Id. 

Finally, the DPPs state that the class settlements have already 

accounted for the amount of commerce remaining in the class after 

opt-outs. Further, some settlements, like the Philips settlement, 

reduce the consideration to be paid based on opt-out claims, and 

all of the settlements include "blow provisions," which allow 

defendants to cancel settlements if opt-out claims substantially 

exceed expectations. ECF No. 2417-1 ("Saveri Decl.") ¶¶ 3-5.

The Movants contend that none of this matters because the DPPs 

produce "no actual evidence of harm to the class," nor do the DPPs 

account for the facts that ViewSonic and Unisys did not make any 

purchases from Philips, or that no defendant has utilized a blow 

provision. Reply at 4. The Movants state again that they are 

clear victims of the price-fixing cartel at issue in this case;

that their opt-outs were not exploitative; that their inclusion

would not prejudice existing class members; that no class member 

could have relied on the Movants' exclusions because those members 

had no guarantee that they would have been entitled to the Movants' 

shares of the settlements; and that granting the Motion would have 

no effect on other excluded class members' decisions in this case 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2517 Filed 04/01/14 Page 6 of 7
7

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

or others. Id. at 5.

The Court disagrees with the Movants' equitable arguments. 

The DPPs have shown the Court that, as expected in a case of this 

MDL's complexity and age, settlement negotiations and agreements 

are the products of long negotiations and difficult calculations. 

They are also, much like a party's decision to opt out of a 

settlement class, the products of highly skilled, experienced 

lawyers' reasoned decisions. The Court declines to grant the 

Movants' motion, because the Court finds that doing so in this 

particular MDL could up-end the existing settlements and derail 

those to come. Granting the Motion would encourage uncertainty and 

disrupt the class action process, though the Court notes that it 

finds no bad faith or gamesmanship in the Movants' conduct in this 

case so far. Moreover, the Court is keenly aware of the drain on 

resources that opt-out cases create. But the Movants consciously 

chose to pursue separate litigations, and the Court declines to 

risk the collapse of the parties' careful settlements at this point

in the case. 

The Movants' Motion is therefore DENIED. These parties are 

highly encouraged to pursue settlements of their own.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2517 Filed 04/01/14 Page 7 of 7