Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01364/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01364-4/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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT)

Antitrust Litigation

___________________________________

CRAGO, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES, LTD., et

al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL No. 1917

Case No. 07-5944 SC

ORDER GRANTING

INDIRECT PURCHASER

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO

AUTHORIZE SERVICE ON

CERTAIN FOREIGN

DEFENDANTS PURSUANT

TO FEDERAL RULE OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE

4(F)(3)

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on the Indirect Purchaser

Plaintiffs' Motion to Authorize Service on Certain Foreign

Defendants Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3)

("Motion"). Docket No. 344. Defendants Koninklijke Philips

Electronics N.V. ("Koninklijke") and Toshiba Corporation

("Toshiba") Opposed the Motion and Plaintiffs filed a Reply. 

Docket Nos. 354, 357, 363. The remaining Defendants affected by

the Motion have agreed to accept service. See Docket Nos. 353,

Case 3:08-cv-01364-JST Document 20 Filed 09/03/08 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 Rule 4(f)(3) states that "an individual . . . may be

served at a place not within any judicial district of the United

States: . . . by other means not prohibited by international

agreements, as the court orders." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3).

2 It is undisputed that both Defendants are foreign

corporations located in countries that are signatories to the Hague

Convention.

2

356, 360, 361, 372. The matter was submitted to the Honorable

Judge Legge, who has been appointed Special Master in this action. 

Judge Legge conducted a hearing and issued a Report and

Recommendation regarding the Motion. Docket No. 373. After

considering Judge Legge's Report and Recommendation of August 29,

2008, and after reviewing the parties' papers, this Court GRANTS

Plaintiffs' Motion. 

The Court merely notes that under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4(f)(3)1

 and the relevant caselaw, service on foreign

defendants, even those who are signatories to the Hague

Convention, is proper under Rule 4(f)(3) where the foreign

defendants have domestic subsidiaries and/or counsel and where

service does not require transmittal abroad.2 See Volkswagenwerk

Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 707 (1988) (holding

that the "only transmittal [of service] to which the [Hague]

Convention applies is a transmittal abroad that is required as a

necessary part of service"). 

In the present case, it is undisputed that both Koninklijke

and Toshiba have domestic subsidiaries and domestic counsel. The

Supreme Court has stated that "[w]here service on a domestic agent

is valid and complete under both state law and the Due Process

Clause, our inquiry ends and the [Hague] Convention has no further

Case 3:08-cv-01364-JST Document 20 Filed 09/03/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

 For this reason, Defendants' reliance on a footnote from

Rio Properties is misplaced. See Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1015

n.4 (stating that a "federal court would be prohibited from issuing

a Rule 4(f)(3) order in contravention of an international

agreement, including the Hague Convention"). As the Hague

Convention, for the reasons stated above, does not apply, this

footnote is inapposite.

3

implications." Volkswagenwerk, 486 U.S. at 707. This reasoning

applies with equal force to service on a domestic agent under

federal law. See, e.g., In re LDK Solar Sec. Litig., C No. 07-

5182, 2008 WL 2415186, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2008) (stating

"nothing in the [Hague] Convention bars the requested means of

service" under Rule 4(f)(3) upon a domestic subsidiary). 

Defendants have provided no explanation for why transmittal abroad

would be required in the present case, when federal law plainly

permits service on Defendants' domestic subsidiaries or domestic

counsel. See Rio Prop., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d

1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that "[a]pplying th[e] proper

construction of Rule 4(f)(3) . . ., trial courts have authorized a

wide variety of alternative methods of service including . . .

delivery to defendant's attorney"). Defendants' argument that

service under Rule 4(f)(3) is somehow prohibited by the Hague

Convention in the present circumstances is, accordingly, without

support. 

The Hague Convention applies only when transmittal abroad is

required. Because Koninklijke and Toshiba have domestic

subsidiaries and domestic counsel, transmittal abroad for service

is not required. The Hague Convention therefore does not prohibit

service on Defendants under Rule 4(f)(3).3 Plaintiffs' Motion is

Case 3:08-cv-01364-JST Document 20 Filed 09/03/08 Page 3 of 4
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 4

GRANTED.

The hearing on this Motion scheduled for Friday, September 5,

2008, is hereby VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 3, 2008

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01364-JST Document 20 Filed 09/03/08 Page 4 of 4