Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-md-01827/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-md-01827-180/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:

AT&T MOBILITY LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

AU OPTRONICS CORP., et al.,

Defendants.

and

MOTOROLA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AU OPTRONICS CORP., et al., /

No. M 07-1827 SI

MDL. No. 1827

No. C 09-4997 SI; No. C 09-5840 SI

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO SERVE CHUNGHWA

PICTURE TUBES THROUGH ITS U.S.

COUNSEL

Plaintiffs in these direct action cases filed a motion to serve Chunghwa Picture Tubes and

HannStar Display Corporation through their U.S. counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

4(f)(3). After plaintiffs filed the motion, HannStar agreed to waive service of process, rendering

plaintiffs’ motion moot with respect to HannStar. Plaintiffs and Chunghwa have stipulated to submit

the motion without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion.

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 1657 Filed 04/02/10 Page 1 of 5
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

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(2) authorizes service of process on a foreign business

entity in a manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for individuals. 

2

BACKGROUND

On October 20, 2009, plaintiff AT&T filed an individual complaint in this Court against

numerous domestic and foreign defendants, including Chunghwa Picture Tubes (“Chunghwa”), for

violations of state and federal antitrust laws. The same day, plaintiff Motorola filed a similar complaint

in the Northern District of Illinois, also alleging that Chunghwa violated state and federal antitrust laws.

Pursuant to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s April 20, 2007 transfer order consolidating

pretrial proceedings for a number of actions and this Court’s July 3, 2007 related case pretrial order #1,

the Motorola action was transferred to this Court, and the Clerk of this Court designated both of these

cases as related to MDL No. 1827, M 07-1827. 

Chunghwa is a foreign corporation with headquarters in Taiwan. Taiwan is not a signatory to

the Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents (“Hague

Convention”), and thus service cannot be effected on Chunghwa pursuant to the Hague Convention.

On November 3, 2009, AT&T and Motorola (“plaintiffs”) sent Chunghwa requests to waive service of

summons. According to plaintiffs, Chunghwa is the only defendant which continues to refuse to waive

service of summons, thus prompting the instant motion to serve Chunghwa through its U.S. counsel.

Plaintiffs have not attempted to initiate service on Chunghwa through the letter rogatory process. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs have moved to serve Chunghwa through its U.S. counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). Rule 4(f)(3) permits service in a place not within any judicial district of the

United States, “by . . . means not prohibited by international agreement as may be directed by the court.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3).1

 Chunghwa argues that before plaintiffs can seek to serve it through its U.S.

counsel, plaintiffs must first attempt to personally serve Chunghwa via the letter rogatory process at its

Taiwan addresses.

Plaintiffs have submitted a declaration from Jerome Murphy, counsel for both AT&T and

Motorola. Mr. Murphy states that TransPerfect Translations International, Inc. has provided his law

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 1657 Filed 04/02/10 Page 2 of 5
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

firm with an estimate of the cost of obtaining certified Mandarin Chinese translations of plaintiffs’

complaints and the cost of effecting service of process upon a corporation in Taiwan pursuant to a

response to a letter rogatory. Murphy Reply Decl. ¶ 3. Mr. Murphy states that plaintiffs “will each

incur a charge of approximately $6,090.00 from TransPerfect for a certified Mandarin Chinese

translation of their respective complaints and that each translation will require approximately two

weeks’ time to produce. I further understand that these estimates pertain only to translation of the

complaints and not to translation of any summons or of the Supplementary Material set forth in Civil

Local Rule 4-2 . . . for which Plaintiffs will each incur additional charges. I further understand that

Plaintiffs will each incur a charge of $2,100.00 from TransPerfect for effectuating service of process

upon a corporation in Taiwan through a letter rogatory . . . In addition I have been informed that

properly effecting service of process upon an entity in Taiwan through a letter rogatory can take up to

one year.” Id. ¶ 4.

The Court finds that it is appropriate to order service on Chunghwa through its U.S. counsel. The

Ninth Circuit has rejected the argument that “Rule 4(f) should be read to create a hierarchy of preferred

methods of service of process. [Appellant]’s interpretation would require that a party attempt service

of process by those methods enumerated in Rule 4(f)(2), including diplomatic channels and letters

rogatory, before petitioning the court for alternative relief under Rule 4(f)(3). We find no support for

[this] position. No such requirement is found in the Rule’s text, implied by its structure, or even hinted

at in the advisory committee notes.” Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014-

15 (9th Cir. 2002). The Ninth Circuit concluded “that service of process under Rule 4(f)(3) is neither

a ‘last resort’ nor ‘extraordinary relief.’ It is merely one means among several which enables service

of process on an international defendant.” Id. at 1515 (internal citation omitted). 

Furthermore, plaintiffs need not first attempt to personally serve defendants before it may

reasonably conclude that service by letters rogatory is more expensive and time-consuming than serving

defendant’s counsel. As plaintiffs note, earlier in the MDL the direct purchaser plaintiffs spent many

months attempting to effect service on some Taiwanese defendants through the letter rogatory process,

and this process proved time-consuming, expensive, and burdensome. See Docket No. 725 (Order Re:

Defendant Nexgen Mediatech Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process; Quashing

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 1657 Filed 04/02/10 Page 3 of 5
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

 In that order, the Court held that the record did not demonstrate that defendant Nexgen

Mediatech, Inc., a Taiwanese corporation, had been properly served by the letter rogatory method, and

granted the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ request to serve Nexgen through its U.S. counsel. In an

individual case related to the MDL, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion to serve Taiwanese

defendants, including Chunghwa, through their U.S. counsel. See ATS Claim, LLC v. Epson Elecs. Am.

Inc., et al., C 09-1115 (Docket No. 70). 

4

Service; and Granting Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion to Serve Nexgen Through its Counsel under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(f)(3)).2

 In light of the availability of alternative, speedier relief under Rule 4(f)(3), the

Court finds that there is no reason to require service through letters rogatory in the instant actions. 

Defendants also contend that service through their counsel would violate due process. Service

under Rule 4(f)(3) must “comport with constitutional notions of due process,” meaning that service must

be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of

the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1016-

17 (internal quotation and citation omitted). Chunghwa relies on Forum Financial Group v. President

& Fellows of Harvard College, 199 F.R.D. 22 (D. Me. 2001), which was cited in Rio Properties as an

example of a case in which service had been authorized on a foreign defendant through its U.S. counsel.

In Forum Financial, the foreign defendant had, inter alia, “actively evaded” service and was living

under an assumed name. Id. at 23-24. Chunghwa suggests that Rio Properties is limited to cases

involving facts similar to Forum Financial. However, there is nothing in Rio Properties limiting its

holding in the manner suggested by Chunghwa, and to the contrary, Rio Properties held that district

courts have “sound discretion” to determine when the “particularities and necessities of a given case

require alternate service of process under Rule 4(f)(3)” and noted that “trial courts have authorized a

wide variety of alternative methods of service including publication, ordinary mail, mail to the

defendant’s last known address, delivery to the defendant’s attorney, telex, and most recently, email.”

Id. at 1016. In Rio Properties, the court held that service on the defendant’s attorney was appropriate

there because the attorney had been specifically consulted regarding the lawsuit and it “seemed clear”

that the attorney was in contact with the client. Id. at 1017; see also FMAC Loan Receivables v. Dagra,

228 F.R.D. 531, 534-35 (E.D. Va. 2005). 

Here, the record shows that Chunghwa has consulted its U.S. counsel regarding these lawsuits

and participated in the cases through its U.S. counsel. Chunghwa was formerly represented by Gibson,

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 1657 Filed 04/02/10 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Dunn & Crutcher LLP and is currently represented by Baker & McKenzie LLP. Baker & McKenzie

filed Chunghwa’s opposition to plaintiffs’ motion, and Chunghwa’s current and former counsel have

appeared and participated in the MDL proceedings on numerous occasions. Plaintiffs also state that

Chunghwa’s U.S. counsel entered an appearance and was present at a deposition, cross-noticed by

plaintiffs, where plaintiffs’ counsel questioned a defendant witness. Plaintiffs’ Reply at 6:5-7. Under

these circumstances, the Court finds it reasonable to infer that Chunghwa has sufficient notice of this

case and that service of defendant through its U.S. counsel will comport with due process. See FMAC

Loan Receivables, 228 F.R.D. at 534 (stating that the numerous motions filed by defendant’s attorney

makes it “abundantly clear” that defendant has been in constant communication with his attorney). 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to serve certain Chunghwa through its U.S.

Counsel.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs’

motion to serve Chunghwa through its U.S. counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3).

(Docket No. 32 in C 09-4997 SI; Docket No. 23 in C 09-5480 SI; and Docket No. 1543 in M 07-1827

SI). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 1657 Filed 04/02/10 Page 5 of 5