Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-475/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 Direct 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 Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (“DPPs”) 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 DPPs had not sought entry of default. They stated, “At present, 

it would be premature for DPPs to seek a default judgment against the Irico Entities.” ECF No. 

4705 at 1. 

The DPPs are conflating entry of default with entry of default judgment. “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 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4709 Filed 07/06/16 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

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). 

There is no reason the DPPs cannot seek entry of default pursuant to Rule 55(a). They are 

ordered to do so within ten days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 4709 Filed 07/06/16 Page 2 of 2