Tech Data Corporation et al v. Hitachi, Ltd. et al

Middle District of Florida, flmd-8:2017-cv-00944

CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, MDL No. 1917. (tnS) [Transferred from cand on 4/20/2017.]

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

Case 8:17-cv-00944-EAK-AEP Case MDL No. 1917Document Document 125 99 Filed Filed04/18/17 04/18/17 Page Page11ofof62PageID 5581 UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION MDL No. 1917 (SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE) CONDITIONAL REMAND ORDER The transferee court in this litigation has advised the Panel that coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the action(s) on this conditional remand order have been completed and that remand to the transferor court(s), as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a), is appropriate. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action(s) on this conditional remand order be remanded to its/their respective transferor court(s). IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the transmittal of this order to the transferee clerk for filing shall be stayed 7 days from the date of this order. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7−day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the office of the Clerk for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 10.4(a), the parties shall furnish the Clerk for the Northern District of California with a stipulation or designation of the contents of the record to be remanded. FOR THE PANEL: Apr 18, 2017 Jeffery N. Lüthi Clerk of the Panel Case 8:17-cv-00944-EAK-AEP Case MDL No. 1917Document Document 125 99 Filed Filed04/18/17 04/18/17 Page Page22ofof62PageID 5582 IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION MDL No. 1917 SCHEDULE FOR CRO TRANSFEREE TRANSFEROR DIST DIV. C.A.NO. DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION Tech Data Corporation et al v. Hitachi, Ltd. et CAN 3 13−00157 FLM 8 12−02795 al Interbond Corporation of America v. Hitachi, CAN 3 11−06275 FLS 0 11−62437 Ltd. et al Interbond Corporation of America v. CAN 3 13−05727 FLS 0 13−62482 Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. et al CAN 3 11−06276 FLS 9 11−81263 Office Depot, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd. et al Office Depot, Inc. v. TECHNICOLOR SA et CAN 3 13−05726 FLS 9 13−81174 al Schultze Agency Services, LLC et al v. CAN 3 12−02649 NYE 1 11−05529 Hitachi, Ltd. et al P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation CAN 3 12−02648 NYE 1 11−05530 et al v. Hitachi Ltd. et al Electrograph Systems, Inc. et al v. Hitachi CAN 3 11−01656 NYE 2 11−00831 Ltd. et al Schultze Agency Services, LLC v. CAN 3 13−05668 NYE 2 13−06323 Technicolor SA et al Electrograph Systems, Inc. et al v. CAN 3 13−05724 NYE 2 13−06325 Technicolor SA et al P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation CAN 3 13−05725 NYE 2 13−06327 et al v. Technicolor SA et al CAN 3 11−06396 TXN 3 11−03130 Compucom Systems Inc v. Hitachi Ltd et al Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Hitachi, Ltd. CAN 3 11−06397 WAW 2 11−01909 et al Case 8:17-cv-00944-EAK-AEP Case Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST MDL No. 1917 Document Document Document 125 99-1 5137 Filed Filed Filed 04/18/17 04/18/17 04/05/17 Page Page Page 3 of 1 of 61 PageID 4 of 4 5583 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) Case No. 07-cv-05944-JST 7 ANTITRUST LITIGATION 8 ORDER GRANTING MOTION 9 This Document Relates To: SUGGESTING REMAND 10 Re: ECF No. 4985 Electrograph Sys., Inc., et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., No. 11-cv-01656; 11 12 Electrograph Sys., Inc., et al. v. Technicolor Northern District of California SA, et al., No. 13-cv-05724; United States District Court 13 Interbond Corp. of Am. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et 14 al., No. 11-cv-06275; 15 Interbond Corp. of Am. v. Technicolor SA, et 16 al., No. 13-cv-05727; 17 Office Depot, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., No. 11-cv-06276; 18 19 Office Depot, Inc. v. Technicolor SA, et al., No. 13-cv-05726; 20 CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et 21 al., No. 11-cv-06396; 22 Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et 23 al., No. 11-cv-06397; 24 P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp., et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., No. 12-cv-02648; 25 P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp., et al. 26 v. Technicolor SA, et al., No. 13-cv-05725; 27 Schultze Agency Servs., LLC v. Hitachi, Ltd., 28 et al., No. 12-cv-02649; Case 8:17-cv-00944-EAK-AEP Case Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST MDL No. 1917 Document Document Document 125 99-1 5137 Filed Filed Filed 04/18/17 04/18/17 04/05/17 Page Page Page 4 of 2 of 62 PageID 4 of 4 5584 Schultze Agency Servs., LLC v. Technicolor 1 SA, et al., No. 13-cv-05668; 2 Tech Data Corp., et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et 3 al., No. 13-cv-00157. 4 5 6 Before the Court is the Motion Suggesting Remand brought by Electrograph Systems, Inc., 7 Electrograph Technologies Corp., Office Depot, Inc., CompuCom Systems, Inc., Interbond 8 Corporation of America, P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, ABC Appliance, Inc., 9 Schultze Agency Services LLC on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and Tweeter Newco, LLC, Tech 10 Data Corporation and Tech Data Product Management, Inc., and Costco Wholesale Corporation's 11 (the "Remand Plaintiffs"). The Court will grant the motion. 12 This multi-district antitrust case concerning cathode ray tube technology has now reached Northern District of California United States District Court 13 the end of pretrial proceedings. On April 12, 2016, the Remand Plaintiffs filed an administrative 14 motion for leave to file the present motion, ECF No. 4555, which the Court granted. ECF No. 15 4618. Then, on October 26, 2016, they filed the present motion suggesting remand. ECF No. 16 4985. Defendants oppose the motion. ECF No. 5011. 17 The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the JPML) may transfer actions from 18 various districts to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1407(a). The JPML must remand those actions to the transferor courts "no later than the 20 conclusion of pretrial proceedings in the transferee court." Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss 21 Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 36-37 (1998). 22 The Remand Plaintiffs request an order suggesting that their cases be remanded to the 23 transferor courts, to be entered by the Court upon resolution of seven identified motions that were 24 outstanding at the time Plaintiffs filed the present motion,1 because at that time "all MDL pretrial 25 proceedings in the Remand Plaintiffs' cases will be complete." ECF No. 4985 at 3. 26 27 1 28 Five were summary judgment motions. See ECF Nos. 2976, 2984, 3001, 3037, 3040. Two were Daubert motions. See ECF Nos. 3170, 3172. 2 Case 8:17-cv-00944-EAK-AEP Case Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST MDL No. 1917 Document Document Document 125 99-1 5137 Filed Filed Filed 04/18/17 04/18/17 04/05/17 Page Page Page 5 of 3 of 63 PageID 4 of 4 5585 1 The Court agrees. Because those seven motions are now resolved2 and pretrial 2 proceedings are complete, remand is required. See Lexecon, 523 U.S at 35. The statute governing 3 multidistrict litigation procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1407, creates an obligation to remand actions "at or 4 before the conclusion" of pretrial proceedings that is "impervious to judicial discretion." See 5 Lexecon, 523 U.S. at 35. 6 Defendants argue that the present motion is "premature" because the Remand Plaintiffs 7 filed the motion before the seven then-pending motions were resolved, although they requested 8 that the Court not suggest remand until resolution had occurred. See ECF No. 5011 at 3. It is hard 9 to see why the distinction makes any difference. Moreover, since pretrial proceedings are now 10 complete, remand is obligatory. See Lexecon, 523 U.S. at 35. Requiring the Remand Plaintiffs to 11 refile a duplicative motion now would not promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation 12 or add anything useful to the decision-making process. Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Defendants also contend that they need time after resolution of the pretrial motions, but 14 before the Court suggests remand, to "gaug[e] the value of any potential settlements." ECF No. 15 5011 at 2. But 28 U.S.C. § 1407 does not require, or even mention, such a period of time. And if 16 the Court's recent rulings have provided additional information that makes it easier for the parties 17 to settle their cases, they can finish that task whether the cases are venued in San Francisco or in 18 their original courts. Finally, after presenting their arguments, Defendants' Opposition requests 19 only that the present motion be denied "until pre-trial proceedings are complete." ECF No. 5011 20 at 5. They now are. 21 CONCLUSION 22 The Court grants the motion suggesting remand. Pursuant to Rule 10.1(b) of the Rules of 23 the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the Court SUGGESTS that the Panel remand the 24 following actions: 25 For remand to the Eastern District of New York: Electrograph Sys., Inc., et al. v. Hitachi, 26 Ltd., et al., N.D. Cal. No. 11-cv-01656; Electrograph Sys., Inc., et al. v. Technicolor SA, et al., 27 28 2 See ECF Nos. 5111, 5105, 5119, 4559, 5120, 5102, and 5136. 3 Case 8:17-cv-00944-EAK-AEP Case Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST MDL No. 1917 Document Document Document 125 99-1 5137 Filed Filed Filed 04/18/17 04/18/17 04/05/17 Page Page Page 6 of 4 of 64 PageID 4 of 4 5586 1 N.D. Cal. No. 13-cv-05724; P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp., et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., 2 N.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-02648; P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp., et al. v. Technicolor SA, et 3 al., N.D. Cal. No. 13-cv-05725; Schultze Agency Servs., LLC v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., N.D. Cal. No. 4 12-cv-02649; Schultze Agency Servs., LLC v. Technicolor SA, et al., N.D. Cal. No. 13-cv-05668. 5 For remand to the Southern District of Florida: Interbond Corp. of Am. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et 6 al., N.D. Cal. No. 11-cv-06275; Interbond Corp. of Am. v. Technicolor SA, et al., N.D. Cal. No. 7 13-cv-05727; Office Depot, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., N.D. Cal. No. 11-cv-06276; Office Depot, 8 Inc. v. Technicolor SA, et al., N.D. Cal. No. 13-cv-05726. 9 For remand to the Middle District of Florida: Tech Data Corp., et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., 10 N.D. Cal. No. 13-cv-00157. 11 For remand to the Northern District of Texas: CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et 12 al., N.D. Cal. No. 11-cv-06396. Northern District of California United States District Court 13 For remand to the Western District of Washington: Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hitachi, 14 Ltd., et al., N.D. Cal. No. 11-cv-06397. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: April 5, 2017 17 ______________________________________ 18 JON S. TIGAR 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4