Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04333/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04333-25/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 06-4333 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR CLARIFICATION

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG,

et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion for clarification with respect to the court’s August

31, 2007 order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’

complaint. Plaintiffs’ motion, which is unopposed, seeks clarification that plaintiff State

Maryland has authority under Maryland’s Antitrust Act (“MATA”) to seek monetary

damages for the indirect purchases of the state and its political subdivisions, and that the

court was not actually dismissing the claims for damages brought on behalf of the state and

its political subdivisions. For the reasons that follow, plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.

First, clarification is warranted with respect to those indirect purchaser claims

seeking money damages on behalf of the State. Plaintiffs have properly noted that the

court’s order could potentially create confusion as to the actual claims being dismissed,

since the order (1) begins discussion of plaintiffs’ MATA claims by noting that defendants

specifically do not target claims on behalf of the state; but then (2) generally concludes that

“plaintiffs’ indirect purchaser claims pursuant to MATA” are dismissed, without distinction as

to claims brought on behalf of the state, and other indirect purchasers’ claims. See August

Case 4:06-cv-04333-PJH Document 243 Filed 10/16/07 Page 1 of 3
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

31, 2007 Order at 32:26-27, 34:7-8. In view of this, plaintiffs are entitled to clarification that

the court’s August 31, 2007 order was intended to exempt from dismissal all indirect

purchaser claims brought on behalf of the state pursuant to MATA, in view of the fact that

(1) defendants did not seek to dismiss such claims; and (2) MATA expressly grants the

State Attorney General the ability to bring such claims, per the exception stated in Md.

Com. Law Code Ann. § 11-209(b)(2)(ii). 

Second, clarification is also warranted with respect to indirect purchaser claims

seeking money damages brought on behalf of political subdivisions. Plaintiffs argue that

defendants never actually moved to dismiss the State Attorney General’s indirect purchaser

claims on behalf of political subdivisions or “governmental purchasers.” Plaintiffs

furthermore argue that the exception contained in Md. Com. Law Code § 11-209(b)(2)(ii) –

which defendants relied on when they expressly declined to seek dismissal of plaintiffs’

claims on behalf of the state – also applies to claims on behalf of “political subdivisions.” 

The court’s order did not directly address whether indirect purchaser claims brought

on behalf of political subdivisions can qualify under the limited exception for indirect

purchaser standing codified at section 11-209(b)(2)(ii) of MATA. This is because, upon

review of the parties’ original arguments, the matter was not sufficiently highlighted by the

parties. Indeed, defendants’ motion was unclear as to whether defendants even sought to

dismiss indirect purchaser claims brought on behalf of political subdivisions or government

entities in the first place. Regardless, upon review of plaintiffs’ arguments here, in

conjunction with the language of the statute and defendants’ non-opposition to this’ motion,

the court agrees with plaintiffs that the indirect purchaser claims “on behalf of political

subdivisions” are permissible, as an exception to MATA’s general prohibition on indirect

purchaser suits (as recognized in Davidson v. Microsoft Corp., 792 A.2d 336, 344 (Md. Ct.

Spec. App. 2002)). The exception is codified at section 11-209(b)(2)(ii). 

In sum, therefore, the court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion for clarification, and

holds that the court’s August 31, 2007 order does not contemplate dismissal of plaintiffs’

Case 4:06-cv-04333-PJH Document 243 Filed 10/16/07 Page 2 of 3
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

indirect purchaser claims under MATA, brought on behalf of either the State or its

government entities pursuant to Md. Com. Law Code § 11-209(b)(2)(ii). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-04333-PJH Document 243 Filed 10/16/07 Page 3 of 3