Indirect Purchaser v. John Finn

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit February 13, 2019

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 13 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) No. 16-16368 ANTITRUST LITIGATION, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05944-JST ------------------------------

INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS, ORDER*

Plaintiff-Appellee,

JOHN FINN; LAURA TOWNSEND FORTMAN,

Objectors-Appellants,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. CO., LTD.; HITACHI, LTD.; HITACHI DISPLAYS, LTD., AKA Japan Display, Inc.; HITACHI AMERICA, LTD; HITACHI ASIA, LTD.; HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), INC.; PANASONIC CORPORATION, FKA Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. ("MEI"), is a Japanese entity; PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA; MT PICTURE DISPLAY CO., LTD; PHILIPS KONINKLIJKE N.V.; PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION; PHILIPS TAIWAN LIMITED; PHILIPS DO BRASIL LTDA.; THOMSON CONSUMER ELECTRONICS, INC.; THOMSON SA,

Defendants-Appellees.

In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) No. 16-16371 ANTITRUST LITIGATION, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05944-JST ------------------------------

INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SEAN HULL; GORDON B. MORGAN,

Objectors-Appellants,

TOSHIBA CORPORATION; TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC.; TOSHIBA AMERICA

2 INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.; TOSHIBA AMERICA CONSUMER PRODUCTS, LLC; TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC.; SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG SDI AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG SDI (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD; SAMSUNG SDI MEXICO S.A. DE C.V.; SAMSUNG SDI BRASIL LTDA.; SHENZEN SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD.; TIANJIN SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD.; HITACHI, LTD.; HITACHI DISPLAYS, LTD., AKA Japan Display, Inc.; HITACHI AMERICA, LTD; HITACHI ASIA, LTD.; HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), INC.; PANASONIC CORPORATION, FKA Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. ("MEI"), is a Japanese entity; PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA; MT PICTURE DISPLAY CO., LTD; PHILIPS KONINKLIJKE N.V.; PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION; PHILIPS TAIWAN LIMITED; PHILIPS DO BRASIL LTDA.; THOMSON CONSUMER ELECTRONICS, INC.; THOMSON SA,

Defendants-Appellees.

In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) No. 16-16373 ANTITRUST LITIGATION, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05944-JST ------------------------------

INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

3 v.

ANTHONY GIANASCA; GLORIA COMEAUX; MINA ASHKANNEJHAD, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of the late R. Deryl Edwards, Jr.; JEFFREY SPEAECT; ROSEMARY CICCONE; JEFF CRAIG,

Objectors-Appellants,

TOSHIBA CORPORATION; TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC.; TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.; TOSHIBA AMERICA CONSUMER PRODUCTS, LLC; TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC.; SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG SDI AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG SDI (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD; SAMSUNG SDI MEXICO S.A. DE C.V.; SAMSUNG SDI BRASIL LTDA.; SHENZEN SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD.; TIANJIN SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD.; HITACHI, LTD.; HITACHI DISPLAYS, LTD., AKA Japan Display, Inc.; HITACHI AMERICA, LTD; HITACHI ASIA, LTD.; HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), INC.; PANASONIC CORPORATION, FKA Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. ("MEI"), is a Japanese entity; PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA; MT PICTURE DISPLAY CO., LTD; PHILIPS KONINKLIJKE N.V.; PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION; PHILIPS TAIWAN

4 LIMITED; PHILIPS DO BRASIL LTDA.; THOMSON CONSUMER ELECTRONICS, INC.; THOMSON SA,

Defendants-Appellees.

In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) No. 16-16374 ANTITRUST LITIGATION, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05944-JST ------------------------------

INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

DONNIE CLIFTON,

Objector-Appellant,

5 HITACHI ASIA, LTD.; HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), INC.; PANASONIC CORPORATION, FKA Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. ("MEI"), is a Japanese entity; PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA; MT PICTURE DISPLAY CO., LTD; PHILIPS KONINKLIJKE N.V.; PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION; PHILIPS TAIWAN LIMITED; PHILIPS DO BRASIL LTDA.; THOMSON CONSUMER ELECTRONICS, INC.; THOMSON SA,

Defendants-Appellees.

In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) No. 16-16378 ANTITRUST LITIGATION, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05944-JST ------------------------------

INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

DAN L. WILLIAMS & CO.,

Objector-Appellant,

TOSHIBA CORPORATION; TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC.; TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.; TOSHIBA AMERICA CONSUMER PRODUCTS, LLC; TOSHIBA AMERICA

6 ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC.; SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG SDI AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG SDI (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD; SAMSUNG SDI MEXICO S.A. DE C.V.; SAMSUNG SDI BRASIL LTDA.; SHENZEN SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD.; TIANJIN SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD.; HITACHI, LTD.; HITACHI DISPLAYS, LTD., AKA Japan Display, Inc.; HITACHI AMERICA, LTD; HITACHI ASIA, LTD.; HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), INC.; PANASONIC CORPORATION, FKA Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. ("MEI"), is a Japanese entity; PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA; MT PICTURE DISPLAY CO., LTD; PHILIPS KONINKLIJKE N.V.; PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION; PHILIPS TAIWAN LIMITED; PHILIPS DO BRASIL LTDA.; THOMSON CONSUMER ELECTRONICS, INC.; THOMSON SA,

Defendants-Appellees.

In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) No. 16-16379 ANTITRUST LITIGATION, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05944-JST ------------------------------

INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

ROCKHURST UNIVERSITY; GARY

7 TALEWSKY; HARRY GARAVANIAN,

Objectors-Appellants,

Defendants-Appellees.

In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) No. 16-16399

8 ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 16-16400

------------------------------ D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05944-JST

INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

ANTHONY GIANASCA; GLORIA COMEAUX; MINA ASHKANNEJHAD, individually and/or as Administrator of the Estate of the Late R. Deryl Edwards, Jr.; JEFFREY SPEAECT; ROSEMARY CICCONE; JEFF CRAIG,

Movants-Appellants,

9 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. ("MEI"), is a Japanese entity; PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA; MT PICTURE DISPLAY CO., LTD; PHILIPS KONINKLIJKE N.V.; PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION; PHILIPS TAIWAN LIMITED; PHILIPS DO BRASIL LTDA.; THOMSON CONSUMER ELECTRONICS, INC.; THOMSON SA,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 10, 2018 Submission Vacated April 30, 2018 Re-Submitted February 13, 2019 San Francisco, California

Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges, and Gary S. Katzmann,* Judge.

On November 8, 2018, in response to Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ motion

for an indicative ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1, the

District Court stated that, “with the benefit of hindsight . . . it erred in approving

the parties’ original settlement” now pending on appeal in our court. The district

court recognized that it should have provided recovery to class members in the

* The Honorable Gary S. Katzmann, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

10 Omitted Repealer States, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Hampshire, which

necessarily affects the remaining issues on appeal: 1) the adequacy of

representation under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4); and 2) the

attorneys’ fees awarded to Lead Counsel.

We therefore remand this case so that the district court may reconsider its

approval of the settlement.

The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ motion for a stay, filed October 1, 2018

(Dkt. No. 226), and the Objector-Appellants’ motion for leave to file an enlarged

response (Dkt. Nos. 223 & 224) are DENIED as moot.

The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion Requesting Remand with

Instructions Regarding: (1) The Plan of Distribution for the Settlements; and (2)

The Fee Order, filed January 9, 2019 (Dkt. No. 230), is DENIED.1

The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages,

filed January 29, 2019 (Dkt. No. 233), is GRANTED. The Reply brief has already

been filed (Dkt. No 234). The request of Objectors-Appellants to file a Surreply to

that Reply, contained within their Opposition to the Motion for Leave to File

Excess Pages (Dkt. 235), is DENIED as moot.

1 Objector-Appellants’ motion to supplement the record on appeal (Dkt. No. 120) and motion to strike Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ response to the same (Dkt. No. 150) are DENIED as moot. Objector-Appellants’ and Defendant-Appellees’ motions to take judicial notice (Dkt. Nos. 130, 197) are DENIED as moot.

11 The motions to dismiss appeal voluntarily filed by Objectors-Appellants

Sean Hull (Dkt. No. 198), John Finn and Laura Townsend Fortman (Dkt. No. 199),

Donnie Clifton (Dkt. No. 200), and Josie Saik (Dkt. No. 222) are GRANTED.

We therefore REMAND to the District Court to reconsider its order on class

certification and settlement approval. We do not vacate the order at this time.

The current panel will retain responsibility for future appeals in this case.

Each party shall bear its own costs of appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reference

Status: Unpublished