Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2011cv02591/241223/61
Timestamp: 2018-07-17 07:39:21
Document Index: 16265583

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 16', '§16750', '§16750', '§17200', '§17208', '§ 340', '§16750', '§ 17200', '§ 16750', '§ 16', '§ 12', '§ 16', '§ 340', '§ 340']

MOTION to Dismiss DEFENDANTS JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by AU Optronics Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation America Inc for T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc. v AU Optronics Corporation, et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings
Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California California Northern District Court T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc. v AU Optronics Corporation, et al Filing 61
MOTION to Dismiss DEFENDANTS JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by AU Optronics Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation America Inc. Motion Hearing set for 2/10/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. Responses due by 1/17/2012. Replies due by 1/31/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order GRANTING DEFENDANTS JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AMENDED COMPLAINT)(Nedeau, Christopher) (Filed on 12/12/2011)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CHRISTOPHER A. NEDEAU (CA SBN 81297) CARL L. BLUMENSTEIN (CA SBN 124158) PATRICK J. RICHARD (CA SBN 131046) SALEZKA L. AGUIRRE (CA SBN 260956) NOSSAMAN LLP 50 California Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.398.3600 Facsimile: 415.398.2438 cnedeau@nossaman.com cblumenstein@nossaman.com prichard@nossaman.com saguirre@nossaman.com 10 Attorneys for Defendants AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION and AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA 11 [additional defendants on signature page] 9 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 14 15 16 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Case No. 3:11-cv-02591 SI 3:11-CV-02591 SI MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827 SI T-MOBILE U.S.A., INC., DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AMENDED COMPLAINT 17 18 19 20 21 22 Plaintiff, vs. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Date: February 10, 2012 Time: 9:00 A.M. Location: Courtroom 10, 19th Floor 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 23 24 25 26 27 28 MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 PAGE 3 4 I. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES...............................................................................................1 5 II. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1 6 III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND....................................................................................................3 7 A. T-Mobile’s Amended Complaint.........................................................................................3 8 B. T-Mobile’s Allegations Regarding Its Purchases of LCD Products....................................3 9 IV. ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................................4 10 A. T-Mobile’s California State-Law Claims Should Be Dismissed As Untimely. ..................4 11 B. T-Mobile’s Complaint Fails to Allege that T-Mobile Purchased the Products at Issue in California and New York. ......................................................................................6 12 C. T-Mobile Lacks Standing to Assert Sherman Act and Clayton Act Claims for Damages Based on Indirect Purchases from OEMs. ...........................................................8 13 D. T-Mobile Cannot Maintain Donnelly Act Claims for Indirect Purchases Made Prior to December 23, 1998. ................................................................................................9 14 15 V. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................10 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC i CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 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 PAGE Cases Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague 449 U.S. 302 (1981)................................................................................................................................ 6 Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah 414 U.S. 538 (1974)................................................................................................................................ 5 Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Indus. 7 Cal. 4th 926 (1994) .............................................................................................................................. 4 Blewett v. Abbott Labs., Inc. 86 Wash. App. 782 (1997)...................................................................................................................... 7 Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois 431 U.S. 720 (1977)....................................................................................................................... passim In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litig. 527 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .................................................................................................. 7 In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litig. No. 2:09-MD-02042, 2011 WL 2433392 (E.D. Mich. June 13, 2011) .................................................. 9 In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig. (AT&T Mobility) No. M 07-1827 SI, 2010 WL 2609434 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2010)............................................. 2, 6, 7, 8 In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig. (Costco) No. M 07-1827 SI, ECF No. 3396 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011) ............................................................... 6 In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig. (Costco) No. M 07-1827 SI, ECF No. 4195 (Nov. 28, 2011) ....................................................................... 2, 7, 8 In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig. (MetroPCS) No. M 07-1827 SI, 2011 WL 5104356 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2011) ......................................................... 5 In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig. (Motorola) No. M 07-1827 SI, 2010 WL 2610641 (June 28, 2010) ......................................................................... 6 In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig. (State of Fl.) No. M 07–1827 SI, 2011 WL 1100133 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2011)........................................................ 6 In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig. (Target) No. C 10-4945 SI, 2011 WL 3738985 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2011) ..................................................... 2, 9 In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig. No. 99-197, 2000 WL 1511376 (D.D.C. Oct. 6, 2000) .......................................................................... 9 MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC ii CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. 44 Cal.3d 1103 (1998) ............................................................................................................................ 4 Lennon v. Philip Morris Cos. 734 N.Y.S.2d 374 (Sup. Ct. 2001).......................................................................................................... 9 Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co. 355 U.S. 373 (1958)................................................................................................................................ 6 Norgart v. The Upjohn Co. 21 Cal.4th 383 (1999) ............................................................................................................................. 4 Pecover v. Elecs. Arts. Inc. 633 F. Supp. 2d 976 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .................................................................................................... 7 Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts 472 U.S. 797 (1985)................................................................................................................................ 6 Pool Water Prods. v. Olin Corp. 258 F.3d 1024, n.4 (9th Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................................... 6 Sanchez v. S. Hoover Hosp. 18 Cal.3d 93 (1976) ................................................................................................................................ 4 Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. v. Fed. Trade Comm’n 657 F.2d 971 (8th Cir. 1981) .................................................................................................................. 6 Statutes 15 U.S.C. § 16(i). ........................................................................................................................................ 5 20 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §16750(a) .............................................................................................................................................. 4 §16750.1................................................................................................................................................ 4 §17200................................................................................................................................................... 4 §17208................................................................................................................................................... 4 21 N.Y. Gen. Bus. §§ 340-347......................................................................................................................... 9 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC iii CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 2 3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 3, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the 4 matter may be heard, in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, 5 before the Honorable Susan Illston, the defendants listed in the signature blocks below (“Defendants”) 6 will and hereby do move the Court, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 7 for an Order partially dismissing the Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 8 (“Amended Complaint”) filed by Plaintiff T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc. (“T-Mobile”). 9 This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the following Memorandum of Points and 10 Authorities, the complete files and records in this action, argument of counsel, and such other matters as 11 the Court may consider. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC 1 CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 3 1. Whether T-Mobile’s California state-law claims should be dismissed as untimely. 4 2. Whether T-Mobile’s claims brought under the laws of California and New York must be 5 dismissed under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution because T-Mobile does not allege that 6 it purchased LCD Products in these States. 7 3. Whether T-Mobile’s Sherman Act claims based upon indirect purchases of LCD Products 8 should be dismissed for lack of standing under the Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. 9 Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977). 10 4. Whether T-Mobile’s New York Donnelly Act claims for indirect purchases made prior to 11 December 23, 1998, should be dismissed for lack of standing. 12 II. 13 INTRODUCTION On April 18, 2011, T-Mobile filed its original complaint in the United States District Court for 14 the Western District of Washington. See Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief, No. 3:11-cv- 15 02591, ECF No. 1 (Apr. 18, 2011). The action was transferred to this Court for purposes of 16 coordination of pre-trial proceedings. See Conditional Transfer Order, No. 3:11-cv-02591, ECF No. 15 17 (May 18, 2011). Following the transfer, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss T-Mobile’s Complaint 18 and placed T-Mobile on notice of the numerous defects in its original complaint. See Defendants’ Joint 19 Notice of Motion to Dismiss Complaint, No. 3:11-cv-02591, ECF No. 35 (September 15, 2011). Rather 20 than respond to Defendants’ motion, T-Mobile elected to amend its complaint and attempt to cure the 21 defects referred to in Defendants’ motion to dismiss. In spite of this, on November 7, 2011, T-Mobile 22 filed an Amended Complaint rife with the same flaws and deficiencies that warranted the dismissal of its 23 original complaint. See Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief, No. 3:11-cv-02591, 24 ECF No. 55 (November 7, 2011). Specifically, T-Mobile’s claims are deficient for the following 25 reasons: 26 27 First, the applicable statutes of limitations bar T-Mobile’s California state-law claims. These claims are subject to a four-year limitations period, which expired before T-Mobile filed suit on April 28 MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC 1 CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 18, 2011. These claims are thus time barred, and none of T-Mobile’s alleged bases for tolling the 2 statutes of limitations – fraudulent concealment, pending class action lawsuits, and the filing of criminal 3 informations by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) – can save them. 4 Second, T-Mobile’s claims under the laws of California and New York should be dismissed on 5 Due Process grounds. To satisfy the requirements of Due Process, T-Mobile must sufficiently plead the 6 location of its purchases. In fact, this Court has repeatedly held that “in order to invoke the various state 7 laws at issue, plaintiffs must be able to allege that ‘the occurrence or transaction giving rise to the 8 litigation’ – plaintiffs’ purchases of allegedly price-fixed goods – occurred in the various states.” In re 9 TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig. (AT&T Mobility), No. M 07-1827 SI, 2010 WL 2609434, at *2-3 10 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2010); see also In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig. (Costco), No. M 07- 11 1827 SI, ECF No. 4195, at 2 (Nov. 28, 2011) (acknowledging the Court’s “longstanding view that the 12 most significant transaction in a price-fixing case ‘is the plaintiff’s purchase of an allegedly price-fixed 13 good.’”). T-Mobile’s Amended Complaint, however, is conspicuously vague as to where T-Mobile 14 made the purchases that give rise to its claims. 15 Third, at least some of T-Mobile’s federal claims are impermissibly based upon indirect 16 purchases of LCD Products, rather than any direct dealings with Defendants. Under Illinois Brick Co. v. 17 Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), T-Mobile does not have standing under federal law to sue for damages 18 arising from indirect purchases of LCD Products, such as those it made from original equipment 19 manufacturers (“OEMs”). Accordingly, any Sherman Act and Clayton Act claims for damages based on 20 such indirect purchases should be dismissed for lack of standing under Illinois Brick. 21 Fourth, as this Court recently recognized, New York’s Donnelly Act does not authorize recovery 22 for claims based on indirect purchases made before December 23, 1998. See In re TFT-LCD (Flat 23 Panel) Antitrust Litig. (Target), No. C 10-4945 SI, 2011 WL 3738985, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2011) 24 (explaining that “[c]ourts have held that the amendment [to the Donnelly Act] was not retroactive”). As 25 a result, the Court should dismiss T-Mobile’s Donnelly Act claims based on indirect purchases made 26 before that date. 27 28 MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC 2 CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 2 III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On April 18, 2011, well over four years after the investigation by the DOJ into anticompetitive 3 conduct in the LCD panel industry was publicly disclosed and multiple class actions against the 4 Defendants were filed, T-Mobile brought suit alleging a worldwide price-fixing conspiracy among 5 suppliers of “LCD Panels” lasting from January 1, 1996 through December 11, 2006. See Am. Compl. 6 ¶¶ 2-3, 17, 21. T-Mobile sues as a purchaser of “LCD Products” – that is, mobile wireless handsets 7 (containing LCD Panels) that T-Mobile purchased for resale, and computer monitors and laptop 8 computers (also containing LCD Panels) that T-Mobile purchased for its own use. Id. ¶¶ 1, 4, 8, 19. 9 10 A. T-Mobile’s Amended Complaint On November 7, 2011, following Defendants’ original motion to dismiss, T-Mobile filed an 11 Amended Complaint. According to the Amended Complaint, T-Mobile made direct purchases of LCD 12 Products from “certain defendants” and “purchased mobile wireless handsets containing LCD Panels 13 from other handset OEMs, which in turn purchased LCD Panels from defendants and their co- 14 conspirators.” Id. ¶¶ 254, 257. T-Mobile alleges that it also purchased desktop computer monitors and 15 laptops containing LCD Panels, which were manufactured by “computer OEMs” and then sold to T- 16 Mobile for its own use. Id. ¶ 259. 17 T-Mobile brings federal antitrust claims under the Sherman Act and state-law claims under 18 California’s Cartwright Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and New York’s Donnelly Act for all 19 of its direct and indirect purchases of mobile wireless handsets, desktop monitors, and notebooks made 20 during the alleged conspiracy period. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. 21 B. T-Mobile’s Allegations Regarding Its Purchases of LCD Products 22 In its Amended Complaint, T-Mobile adds no new allegations regarding its purchases of LCD 23 Product. Rather, in support of its California and New York state-law claims, T-Mobile repeats the same 24 allegations included in its original complaint – that it “conducted a substantial volume of business in 25 both California and New York,” “provided wireless services and sold mobile wireless handsets 26 containing LCD panels to customers in California and New York through its corporate-owned retail 27 stores,” and “maintained in both California and New York inventories of mobile wireless handsets 28 containing LCD Panels manufactured and sold by defendants[.]” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 26, 298-99. T-Mobile MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC 3 CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 also re-alleges that “all of T-Mobile’s negotiations for the purchase of mobile wireless handsets and 2 other LCD Products took place in the United States and were controlled by procurement organizations 3 based in the United States” and that “all T-Mobile purchase orders for mobile wireless handsets and 4 other LCD Products were issued from the United States and all invoices were sent to T-Mobile in the 5 United States.” Id. ¶ 28. Again, however, T-Mobile fails to allege sufficient contacts between these 6 states and the parties and transactions at issue. Specifically, T-Mobile nowhere alleges that it purchased 7 LCD Products in California or New York. Further, T-Mobile does not specify where negotiations for 8 the purchases of LCD Products took place or even specify the location of its distribution centers. The 9 Amended Complaint, at most, only vaguely suggests that its purchases may have occurred in 10 Washington, where T-Mobile’s headquarters are located. See id. ¶¶ 13, 22. 11 IV. ARGUMENT 12 A. T-Mobile’s California State-Law Claims Should Be Dismissed As Untimely. 13 T-Mobile purports to state a claim under California’s Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 14 §16750(a), and Unfair Competition Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., which both carry a 15 four-year statute of limitations. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16750.1, 17208. Because T-Mobile did not 16 file its original complaint until April 18, 2011 – more than four years after T-Mobile alleges the 17 conspiracy ended – its claims under California state law are untimely. 18 Recognizing that its claim is time-barred, T-Mobile contends that the limitations period was 19 tolled due to fraudulent concealment. Am. Compl. ¶ 275. However, under California law, fraudulent 20 concealment “‘tolls the applicable statute of limitations, but only for that period during which the claim 21 is undiscovered by plaintiff or until such time as plaintiff, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should 22 have discovered it.’” Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Indus., 7 Cal. 4th 926, 931 (1994) (quoting Sanchez 23 v. S. Hoover Hosp., 18 Cal.3d 93, 99 (1976)). Furthermore, a plaintiff “need not be aware of the specific 24 ‘facts’ necessary to establish the claim”; a statute of limitations begins to run once plaintiff has a 25 “suspicion of wrongdoing.” Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1111 (1998); see also Norgart v. 26 The Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383, 98 (1999) (holding that plaintiff is deemed to be on notice of a 27 potential claim when it "has reason at least to suspect a factual basis" for its cause of action). 28 Accordingly, even if fraudulent concealment did toll T-Mobile’s California state-law claims (which MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC 4 CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Defendants dispute), the tolling would have ended no later than December 2006, when T-Mobile 2 acknowledges the alleged conspiracy became public knowledge. Id. ¶¶ 174-75; see also In re TFT-LCD 3 (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig. (MetroPCS), No. M 07-1827 SI, 2011 WL 5104356, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4 26, 2011) (concluding that the statute of limitations on plaintiff’s state antitrust claim began to run when 5 “the DOJ disclosed its investigation on December 11, 2006”). Because T-Mobile did not file a 6 complaint alleging claims under the Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Act until more than four 7 years later, fraudulent concealment cannot salvage its untimely claim. 8 9 T-Mobile’s assertion that the MDL class actions provide bases for tolling is similarly unavailing. A claim is tolled by the filing of a prior class action only to the extent that claim was included in the 10 prior action. See Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 554 (1974). The direct purchaser class 11 action did not include a claim under the Cartwright Act or Unfair Competition Act. See DPP Third Am. 12 Consol. Compl. ¶¶ 237-43, MDL ECF No. 1407 (filed under seal) (asserting claims under federal law 13 only). Similarly, the indirect purchaser class action was brought only on behalf of those who made 14 indirect purchases of televisions, computer monitors, and laptop computers for their “own use and not 15 for resale.” IPP Third Am. Consol. Compl. ¶¶ 250-51, MDL ECF No. 2694. Here, T-Mobile’s 16 allegations are premised almost exclusively upon its purchases of mobile handsets for resale. See Am. 17 Compl. ¶¶ 1, 4, 257-58. Accordingly, neither the DPP nor the IPP actions tolled T-Mobile’s California 18 state-law claims. 19 The DOJ criminal informations likewise did not toll the statute of limitations for T-Mobile’s 20 Cartwright Act claims. T-Mobile presumably seeks to rely on the Clayton Act’s tolling provision, 15 21 U.S.C. § 16(i)1 – there is no analogue under the Cartwright Act or the Unfair Competition Act. Section 22 16(i), however, states that when proceedings have been instituted by the United States to address 23 violations of “the antitrust laws,” the statute of limitations will be tolled for claims “arising under said 24 laws.” Id. (emphasis added). The term “antitrust laws” as used in Section 16(i) is defined in 15 U.S.C. 25 § 12 to encompass a specific list of federal antitrust statutes, and this list has been held to be exclusive. 26 27 28 1 “Whenever any civil or criminal proceeding is instituted by the United States to prevent, restrain, or punish violations of any of the antitrust laws, . . . the running of the statute of limitations in respect to every private or State right of action arising under said laws and based in whole or in part on any matter complained of in said proceeding shall be suspended during the pendency thereof and for one year thereafter.” 15 U.S.C. § 16(i). MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC 5 CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 See, e.g., Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co., 355 U.S. 373, 376 (1958) (“the definition contained in 2 [Section] 1 of the Clayton Act is exclusive”; that a statute not listed therein “may be colloquially 3 described as an ‘antitrust’ statute” is “of no moment”); Pool Water Prods. v. Olin Corp., 258 F.3d 1024, 4 1031 n.4 (9th Cir. 2001); Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 657 F.2d 971, 982 (8th Cir. 5 1981). The Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition Act are not one of those enumerated statutes. 6 Moreover, the United States has not instituted proceedings under California law. By its plain language, 7 therefore, Section 16(i) does not toll T-Mobile’s Cartwright Act or Unfair Competition Act claims. 8 Consistent with the statutory text, moreover, no court has ruled that this provision tolls the statute of 9 limitations for state-law claims. 10 Because T-Mobile’s California state-law claims accrued more than four years before T-Mobile 11 filed suit, and because none of T-Mobile’s alleged bases for tolling applies to these claims, they must be 12 dismissed. 13 14 15 B. T-Mobile’s Complaint Fails to Allege that T-Mobile Purchased the Products at Issue in California and New York. In order to bring a state-law claim consistent with the Due Process Clause of the United States 16 Constitution, a plaintiff must allege that the relevant State has significant contacts with both the parties 17 and the transactions at issue. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302, 310-11 (1981); Phillips 18 Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 821-22 (1985). Indeed, this Court has repeatedly held in related 19 cases that “Due Process requires a plaintiff seeking to bring claims under a state’s antitrust law to 20 demonstrate that the purchases giving rise to those claims occurred within that state.” In re TFT-LCD 21 (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig. (State of Fl.), No. M 07–1827 SI, 2011 WL 1100133, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22 24, 2011); see also In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig. (Costco), No. M 07-1827 SI, ECF No. 23 3396, at 3-5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011) (dismissing plaintiff’s state law claims because it did not allege 24 that it purchased the allegedly price-fixed products in those states); AT&T Mobility, 2010 WL 2609434, 25 at *2-3 (holding that “in order to invoke the various state laws at issue, plaintiffs must be able to allege 26 that ‘the occurrence or transaction giving rise to the litigation’ – plaintiffs’ purchases of allegedly price- 27 fixed goods – occurred in the various states”); Nokia, 2010 WL 2629728, at *3-4 (same); In re TFT- 28 LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig. (Motorola), No. M 07-1827 SI, 2010 WL 2610641, at *8-9 (N.D. Cal. MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC 6 CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 June 28, 2010) (same); Pecover v. Elecs. Arts. Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 976, 984 (N.D. Cal. 2009); In re 2 Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litig., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1011, 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2007). 3 Here, T-Mobile brings state-law claims under the laws of California and New York but fails to 4 allege any facts that would provide a sufficient basis upon which to apply the laws of those states. For 5 instance, similar to its original complaint, T-Mobile’s Amended Complaint contains no allegations that 6 it purchased LCD Products at inflated prices in California and New York. Indeed, T-Mobile’s Amended 7 Complaint is drafted evasively, avoiding any explicit reference to the particular location where its 8 purchases were made.2 9 And while T-Mobile alleges a presence in a variety of states, including California and New 10 York, it does not link that presence to any of its claims. For instance, T-Mobile alleges that it 11 “conducted a substantial volume of business in both California and New York,” that it “provided 12 wireless services and sold mobile wireless handsets containing LCD panels to customers in California 13 and New York through its corporate-owned retail stores,” and that it “maintained in both California and 14 New York inventories of mobile wireless handsets containing LCD Panels manufactured and sold by 15 defendants[.]” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 26, 298-99. But nowhere does T-Mobile allege that it purchased or 16 negotiated the purchase of all, or even some, of its LCD Products in California and New York. As this 17 Court has cautioned, “presence in the various states does not establish a link between plaintiffs’ antitrust 18 claims and the States.” AT&T Mobility, 2010 WL 2609434, at *3 (emphasis added). Further, the fact 19 that T-Mobile conducted a “substantial volume” of business in California and New York is irrelevant if 20 the negotiations over the terms of the purchases and the payments for the products purchased by T- 21 Mobile occurred outside of California and New York. See Costco, ECF No. 4195, at 3 (“Although sales 22 of LCD products in California may constitute a significant portion of Costco’s business, those products 23 were selected in Washington, the negotiation over the terms of purchase took place in Washington, the 24 25 26 27 28 2 It is probable that T-Mobile’s purchases occurred in Washington, where its headquarters are located. Am. Compl. ¶ 22; see also ¶ 13 (“Defendants and their co-conspirators knew that price-fixed LCD Panels and Products containing price-fixed LCD Panels would be sold and shipped into the Western District of Washington . . . .” ). If true, T-Mobile’s claims are a naked attempt to shoehorn its way into state laws that allow indirect purchaser claims so as to avoid the application of Washington law, an attempt which should not be countenanced. See Blewett v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 86 Wash. App. 782, 783-84 (1997) (holding that indirect purchasers lack standing to sue under Washington’s antitrust statute). MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC 7 CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 invoices were sent to Washington, and payment issued from Costco’s Washington headquarters. In the 2 Court’s view, these events are all more significant to Costco’s claims than the issuance of a purchase 3 order.”). 4 T-Mobile also alleges that certain Defendants admitted in plea agreements that they sold relevant 5 products to customers in California “in furtherance” of the alleged conspiracy. Am. Compl. ¶ 291. 6 “[T]he fact that some defendants have admitted to selling price-fixed goods to customers in this District 7 does not [, however,] establish the requisite connection with California because those plea agreements 8 do not state, nor have plaintiffs alleged, that any defendants sold products to [T-Mobile] in California.” 9 AT&T Mobility, 2010 WL 2609434, at *3; see also Costco, ECF No. 4195, at 3 (“This Court has 10 repeatedly rejected the argument that the actions defendants took within California warrant invocation of 11 California law.”). In short, T-Mobile’s state-law claims do not satisfy Due Process requirements and 12 should be dismissed. 13 14 15 C. T-Mobile Lacks Standing to Assert Sherman Act and Clayton Act Claims for Damages Based on Indirect Purchases from OEMs. T-Mobile seemingly seeks to recover damages under federal antitrust laws for all of its purchases 16 of “LCD Products,” including purchases made from OEMs who are not alleged participants in the 17 alleged conspiracy. See Am. Compl. ¶ 285. In Illinois Brick, however, the Supreme Court held that 18 indirect purchasers lack standing to sue for civil damages for alleged violations of the Sherman Act. In 19 doing so, the Court recognized the “evidentiary complexities and uncertainties” that are involved in the 20 use of a pass-on theory “by a plaintiff several steps removed from the defendant in the chain of 21 distribution” and “elevat[ed] direct purchasers to a preferred position[,] . . . den[ying] recovery to those 22 indirect purchasers who may have been actually injured by antitrust violations.” Illinois Brick, 431 U.S. 23 at 732, 746. 24 Here, T-Mobile concedes that it was an indirect purchaser with respect to most of the 25 transactions at issue in the Amended Complaint, alleging that it “purchased mobile wireless handsets 26 containing LCD Panels from other handset OEMs, which in turn purchased LCD Panels from 27 defendants and their co-conspirators.” Am. Compl. ¶ 257; see also id. ¶ 259 (alleging that T-Mobile 28 also purchased desktop computer monitors and notebook computers from OEMs). Even though TMASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC 8 CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Mobile acknowledges that not all of its purchases of LCD Products were made directly from 2 Defendants, its Sherman Act Section 1 claim does not differentiate between purchases allegedly made 3 directly from Defendants or co-conspirators and purchases allegedly made from OEMs not named as 4 defendants or co-conspirators. Id. ¶¶ 280-286. Rather, its claim for relief under the Sherman Act seeks 5 damages for T-Mobile’s “purchases of LCD Products containing LCD Panels sold by defendants, their 6 coconspirators, and others.” Id. ¶ 285 (emphasis added). In essence, T-Mobile’s Amended Complaint 7 tries to circumvent Illinois Brick by seeking damages for all of T-Mobile’s purchases of LCD Products, 8 regardless of whether such LCD Products were purchased directly from one of the Defendants, one of 9 the alleged co-conspirators, or, in fact, from an OEM. 10 T-Mobile is only allowed to bring claims under the federal antitrust laws for those LCD Products 11 it purchased directly from Defendants. Accordingly, to the extent that the Amended Complaint asserts 12 damages claims under the Sherman and Clayton Acts for indirect purchases, this Court should dismiss 13 those claims. See In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litig., No. 2:09-MD-02042, 2011 WL 14 2433392, at *9 (E.D. Mich. June 13, 2011) (dismissing federal claims based on purchases of “refrigerant 15 compressor products” as distinct from purchases of price-fixed compressors themselves). 16 17 18 D. T-Mobile Cannot Maintain Donnelly Act Claims for Indirect Purchases Made Prior to December 23, 1998. As this Court recently recognized, both federal and New York state courts have held that indirect 19 purchasers lack standing to bring claims under New York’s Donnelly Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 340- 20 347, related to purchases that occurred before the effective date of that state’s Illinois Brick repealer 21 amendment, which was December 23, 1998. Target, 2011 WL 3738985, at *3 (“Courts have held that 22 the amendment was not retroactive[.]”); see also In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., No. 99-197, 2000 WL 23 1511376, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 6, 2000) (“Since retroactive application of § 340(6) raises potential ex post 24 facto and due process concerns by likely causing significant increases in defendants' liability, the Court 25 should interpret the 1998 Amendment to operate prospectively only.”); Lennon v. Philip Morris Cos., 26 734 N.Y.S.2d 374, 382 (Sup. Ct. 2001) (“[C]ourts interpreting provisions of the General Business Law 27 have rejected retroactive application of amendments creating new private rights of action. . . . Without 28 MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC 9 CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 allegations of events that postdate the 1998 amendment, the plaintiffs’ complaint fails to sufficiently 2 state a claim.”). 3 In this case, T-Mobile invokes New York’s Donnelly Act to bring a claim for indirect purchases 4 of LCD products containing LCD panels manufactured by Defendants. However, T-Mobile fails to 5 allege when T-Mobile purchased LCD products in New York, relying instead on an overbroad allegation 6 that Defendants participated in a conspiracy from January 1, 1996 through at least December 11, 2006. 7 Am. Compl. ¶¶ 21, 26, 299. To the extent that the Court permits T-Mobile to proceed with a Donnelly 8 Act claim, as in Target, the Court should dismiss any Donnelly Act claims based on purchases made 9 before December 23, 1998. 10 11 V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss (i) T-Mobile’s 12 Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Act claims on statute of limitations grounds, (ii) T-Mobile’s 13 state-law claims because T-Mobile has failed to allege that they are based on purchases made in 14 California and New York, (iii) T-Mobile’s claims under the Sherman and Clayton Acts based on indirect 15 purchases, and (iv) any New York Donnelly Act claims based on purchases made before the enactment 16 of New York’s Illinois Brick repealer amendment. 17 Respectfully submitted, 18 19 20 21 DATED: December 12, 2011 BY: /s/ Christopher A. Nedeau Christopher A. Nedeau Attorneys for Defendants AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION and AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC 10 CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP By: /s/ Harrison J. Frahn IV Harrison J. Frahn IV James G. Kreissman (Bar No. 206740) Harrison J. Frahn IV (Bar No. 206822) Jason M. Bussey (Bar No. 227185) Michael R. Lizano (Bar No. 246222) Arka D. Chatterjee (Bar No. 268546) 2550 Hanover Street Palo Alto, California 94304 Tel: (650) 251-5000 Fax: (650) 251-5002 Attorneys for Defendants CHIMEI INNOLUX CORPORATION, CHI MEI CORPORATION, CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS USA, INC., CMO JAPAN CO., LTD., NEXGEN MEDIATECH, INC. AND NEXGEN MEDIATECH USA, INC. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC 11 CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP By: /s/ Patrick J. Ahern Patrick J. Ahern Patrick J. Ahern (admitted pro hac vice) One Prudential Plaza 130 E. Randolph Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 861-8000 Fax: (312) 698-2899 Attorneys for Defendants CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES, LTD., TATUNG COMPANY, and TATUNG COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP By: /s/ Stephen P. Freccero Stephen P. Freccero Melvin R. Goldman (Bar No. 34097)) Stephen P. Freccero (Bar No. 131093) Derek F. Foran (Bar No. 224569) 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Tel: (415) 268-7000 Fax: (415) 268-7522 Attorneys for Defendants EPSON IMAGING DEVICES CORPORATION, EPSON ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., AND SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC 12 CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 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 K&L GATES LLP By: /s/ Ramona M. Emerson Ramona M. Emerson Hugh F. Bangasser (admitted pro hac vice) Ramona M. Emerson (admitted pro hac vice) Christopher M. Wyant (admitted pro hac vice) 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 623-7580 Fax: (206) 623-7022 Jeffrey L. Bornstein (Bar No. 99358) Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 249-1059 Fax: (415) 882-8220 Attorneys for Defendant HANNSTAR DISPLAY CORPORATION MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP By: /s/ Kent M. Roger Kent M. Roger Kent M. Roger (Bar No. 95987) Herman J. Hoying (Bar No. 257495) Minna L. Naranjo (Bar No. 259005) One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 Tel: (415) 442-1000 Fax: (415) 442-1001 kroger@morganlewis.com hhoying@morganlewis.com mnaranjo@morganlewis.com Attorneys for Defendants HITACHI, LTD., HITACHI DISPLAYS, LTD. and HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), INC. 26 27 28 MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC 13 CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 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 CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP By: /s/ Michael R. Lazerwitz Michael R. Lazerwitz Michael R. Lazerwitz (admitted pro hac vice) Jeremy J. Calsyn (Bar No. 205062) Lee F. Berger (Bar No. 222756) One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 225-2000 Fax: (212) 225-3999 Attorneys for Defendants LG DISPLAY CO, LTD, and LG DISPLAY AMERICA INC. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP By: /s/ Robert D. Wick Robert D. Wick Robert D. Wick (admitted pro hac vice) 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Tel: (202) 662-6000 Fax: (202) 662-6291 Attorneys for Defendants SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP By:_/s/ John M. Grenfell John M. Grenfell John M. Grenfell (Bar No. 88500) 50 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: (415) 983-1000 Fax: (415) 983-1200 Attorneys for Defendants SHARP CORPORATION AND SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION 28 MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC 14 CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 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 WHITE & CASE LLP By: /s/ John H. Chung John H. Chung Christopher M. Curran (admitted pro hac vice) John H. Chung (admitted pro hac vice) Martin M. Toto (admitted pro hac vice) Kristen J. McAhren (admitted pro hac vice) 1155 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 819-8200 Fax: (212) 354-8113 Attorneys for Defendants TOSHIBA CORPORATION, TOSHIBA MOBILE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP By: /s/ Allison A. Davis Allison A. Davis Allison A. Davis (Bar No. 139203) Sanjay Nangia (Bar No. 264986) 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 276-6500 Fax: (415) 276-6599 Nick S. Verwolf (admitted pro hac vice) 777 – 108th Ave. N.E., Suite 2300 Bellevue, WA 98004 Tel: (425) 646-6125 Fax: (425) 646-6199 Attorneys for Defendant SANYO CONSUMER ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 26 27 28 MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC 15 CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP By: /s/ Brendan P. Cullen Brendan P. Cullen Brendan P. Cullen (Bar No. 194057) Shawn Joe Lichaa (Bar No. 250902) 1870 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, California 94303 Tel: (650) 461-5600 Fax: (650) 461-5700 Garrard R. Beeney 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004-2498 Tel: (212) 558-4000 Fax: (212) 558-3588 Attorneys for Defendant PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION Pursuant to General Order 45, Part X-B, the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the signatories to this document. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI SF_IMAN_264238_3.DOC 16 CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02591 SI DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT