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

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

ORDER requesting Supplemental Briefing re: Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss Certain DAP Claims. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on January 8, 2014. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) [Transferred from cand on 4/20/2017.]

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

PageID 782 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8) Case No. C 07-5944 SC 9 In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)) ANTITRUST LITIGATION) MDL No. 1917 10) For the Northern District of California United States District Court This Document Relates to:) ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 11) Tech Data Corp. v. Hitachi,) 12 Ltd., No. 13-cv-00157)) 13)) 14) 15 16 17 The Defendants' joint motion to dismiss, ECF No. 1992 ("MTD"), 18 raises the issue of whether Tech Data's Florida complaint tolls a 19 statute of limitations for Tech Data. The Court has not determined 20 whether this is so, partly because the parties' opposition and 21 reply briefs on the matter do not fully explain their positions. 22 See ECF Nos. 2197 ("Tech Data Opp'n"), 2231 ("Reply"). The Court 23 recognizes that this dispute may not be dispositive, given the 24 parties' contentions regarding whether that particular complaint 25 could toll any claim in this case, but the Court cannot make a 26 fully reasoned holding on this point without more clarity from the 27 parties. 28 Specifically, Tech Data's opposition brief refers to a Florida PageID 783 1 complaint filed in 2007 in support of its tolling argument, but the 2 complaint they cite and include in their declaration is stamped 3 2011. See Opp'n at 8 (citing ECF No. 2198 ("Wagner Decl.") Ex. 4 9). 1 Obviously, these dates would provide vastly different tolling 5 calculations if the Court were to find them relevant at all. 6 Further, Defendants' reply brief suggests in a footnote that "even 7 if Tech Data did benefit from tolling based on the State of 8 Florida's complaint, it would have tolled the statute of 9 limitations for only 367 days, which still renders Tech Data's 10 [Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices ("FDUTPA")] claim For the Northern District of California United States District Court 11 untimely." Reply at 12 n.11. The reply does not directly explain 12 how Defendants calculated this number: for example, it is important 13 for such a calculation to note the relevant complaint's filing 14 date, as well as the date tolling would end based on that complaint 15 (e.g., dismissal based on a stipulation, and whether the dismissal 16 should be calculated as of the Special Master's or the Court's 17 approval). Defendants cite, apparently by analogy, a different 18 section of the reply brief that concerns different parties and 19 different complaints. 20 Based on what the parties have presented on this issue, the 21 Court can make no decision on this aspect of the parties' dispute. 22 The result may or may not be relevant, but the Court ORDERS 23 Defendants and Tech Data to submit supplemental briefing on this 24 matter, clarifying the issues above (and any secondary issues that 25 may necessarily arise from those clarifications). 26 1 Tech Data also cites Florida Statutes section 501.07(1)(c) in 27 this part of their brief, but that section was repealed. The Court assumes that Tech Data meant to cite Section 501.207(1)(c), but if 28 that assumption is wrong, Tech Data should cite the correct statute. 2 PageID 784 1 Tech Data is to file a supplemental brief clarifying their 2 position and identifying the operative Florida complaint within ten 3 (10) days of this Order's signature date. Defendants are to 4 respond within seven (7) days of Tech Data's supplemental brief. 5 The parties' briefs are limited to five (5) pages. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: January 8, 2014 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE For the Northern District of California United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3