Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-md-01827/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-md-01827-198/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST

LITIGATION

 /

This Order Relates to:

ALL CASES

 /

No. M 07-1827 SI

MDL. No. 1827

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE

COURT’S CLASS CERTIFICATION

ORDERS IN LIGHT OF DUKES v. WALMART STORES, INC.

Defendants have filed a motion for leave to file a motion to reconsider the Court’s class

certification orders in light of Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).

In Dukes, the Ninth Circuit clarified the standard governing a district court in considering a Rule 23

motion for class certification. The Dukes court stated, inter alia, that district courts “must [] perform

a rigorous analysis to ensure that the prerequisites of Rule 23 have been satisfied, and this analysis will

often, though not always, require looking behind the pleadings to issues overlapping with the merits of

the underlying claims.” Id. at 593. Defendants assert that reconsideration is warranted because the

Court did not require plaintiffs to prove that the predominance standard is actually met, and instead

applied a more lenient “sufficient showing” standard. In particular, defendants contend that the Court

was required to resolve the parties’ “battle of expert testimony” concerning predominance issues. 

The Court finds that reconsideration is not warranted because the Court conducted a rigorous

analysis to ensure that all of the prerequisites of Rule 23 have been satisfied. With regard to the expert

testimony, the Court was satisfied that plaintiffs’ experts had sufficiently shown that antitrust injury

could be proven on a class-wide basis. The Court did not, as defendants suggest, find “that an expert’s

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 1882 Filed 07/16/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

testimony may establish a component of a Rule 23 requirement simply by being not fatally flawed.”

In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., 471 F.3d 24, 42 (2d Cir. 2006) (“IPO”). To the contrary, the

Court found that plaintiffs’ experts’ regression and correlation analyses were supported by evidence and

were the type of analyses that had been accepted by courts as a means of proving antitrust injury and

damages on a class-wide basis. The Court also addressed defendants’ criticisms of the expert analyses.

Based upon this assessment, the Court found that plaintiffs had shown that class certification was

appropriate. Dukes and IPO do not require that district courts resolve every factual dispute raised by

the parties during class certification. Instead, as the Dukes court stated when it reiterated that “the

explanation we provide today is not a new standard at all. . . . A district court must sometimes resolve

factual issues related to the merits to properly satisfy itself that Rule 23's requirements are met, but the

purpose of the district court’s inquiry at this stage remains focused on, for example, common questions

of law or fact under Rule 23(a)(2), or predominance under Rule 23(b)(3), not the proof of answers to

those questions or the likelihood of success on the merits.” Dukes, 603 F.3d at 590.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration. (Docket No. 1831).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 1882 Filed 07/16/10 Page 2 of 2