AT & T Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3104
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs AT&T Mobility LLC et al. sue multiple LCD panel manufacturers for price-fixing, alleging purchases nationwide including California-related conduct.
- Plaintiffs claim prices of mobile handsets with LCD panels were inflated due to a global conspiracy among defendants to fix prices.
- Plaintiffs sue under Clayton Act, Sherman Act, California Cartwright Act, and California's UCL, seeking damages for direct and indirect purchases; none of the purchases were in California.
- District court dismissed California-law claims on due process grounds, permitting amendment only if plaintiffs specified states of purchase.
- Second amended complaint added California-based conspiratorial conduct; district court dismissed CA claims not based on CA purchases.
- We reverse, holding California law can apply if conspiratorial conduct within California is not slight and casual, and remand for individualized determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cartwright Act may apply despite out-of-state purchases | AT&T argues CA law permissible given conduct in CA linked to purchases abroad | AU argues due process limits CA law to in-state transactions or slight connections | Yes; CA can apply where in-state conspiratorial conduct is substantial. |
| Whether in-state conduct creating state interests supports CA law | Plaintiffs assert California conduct creates significant state interests to apply CA law | Defendants contend due process requires narrow, in-state transaction focus | California conduct within CA creates significant state interests justifying CA law. |
| Whether the due process analysis should consider conduct beyond the place of purchase | Plaintiffs contend all conspiratorial acts in CA relevant to liability | Defendants contend only purchase location matters | Yes; the relevant occurrence includes conspiracy conduct in CA leading to out-of-state sales. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302 (1981) (establishes significant contact standard for choice-of-law)
- Cianci v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.3d 903 (1985) (Cartwright Act scope includes incipient anticompetitive conduct)
- Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., 111 Cal.Rptr.3d 666, 233 P.3d 1066 (Cal. 2010) (Cartwright Act enforcement and deterrence goals in California)
- Knevelbaard Dairies v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 232 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2000) (per se illegality of price-fixing agreements)
- Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (aggregation of contacts supports California law in fraud contexts)
- Shutts v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 472 U.S. 797 (1985) (discussion of choice-of-law and non-weighing of interests)
- Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 662 F.3d 1265 (9th Cir. 2011) (contacts including California-based conduct support law application)
- Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc. v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1036 (1999) (California interest in a competitive market supports enforcement)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague (plurality opinion), 449 U.S. 302 (1981) (foundational due process framework for choice of law)