Best Buy Co. v. Hitachi Ltd.
27 F. Supp. 3d 1002
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- BMCC is a Chinese corporation with principal place of business in Beijing, controlled by MTPD, a Panasonic subsidiary owning 50%; Panasonic later acquired Toshiba’s stake, making MTPD Panasonics wholly owned subsidiary.
- Plaintiffs allege a CRT price-fixing conspiracy from 1998 to 2007 involving BMCC and co-conspirators, with meetings, price coordination, and U.S. market effects.
- BMCC allegedly sold CRTs to Chinese customers and to Panasonic, which sold in the United States; evidence suggests BMCC supplied information and coordinated with Panasonic on pricing.
- Plaintiffs sued BMCC under federal and state antitrust laws in the United States; BMCC moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and service deficiencies.
- Defendant challenges service under Rule 4 and the Hague Convention, arguing service via its U.S. counsel in Washington, D.C., was improper.
- Court denied BMCC’s motion to dismiss, finding valid service, and that specific personal jurisdiction over BMCC is appropriate based on the alleged United States-oriented conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BMCC waived personal jurisdiction defense | Plaintiffs argue waiver because BMCC raised it late and in separate MDL cases | BMCC reserved the right to challenge jurisdiction and did not seek affirmative relief in this case | Not waived; BMCC did not affirmatively seek relief in this case |
| Whether service complied with Rule 4 and Hague Convention | Service by mail to BMCC’s D.C. counsel under Rule 4(f)(3) provided actual notice | Service violated Rule 4, Hague Convention, and due process | Service valid; comports with due process under Rule 4(f)(3) |
| Whether the court has specific personal jurisdiction over BMCC | BMCC purposefully directed activities toward the United States; claims relate to those activities | No purposeful direction; BMCC’s contacts with U.S. are minimal and unconnected to the claims | Yes, the court has specific jurisdiction over BMCC |
| Whether exercise of jurisdiction would be reasonable | Jurisdiction respects U.S. interests and efficiency of MDL; Plaintiffs harmed by price-fixed CRTs | Defendant faces substantial burden and limited U.S. contacts; concerns of international comity | Exercise of jurisdiction reasonable under seven-factor test |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts required for in-forum suit)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (reasonableness and long-arm jurisdiction in contracts with forum state)
- Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat., Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) (seven-factor test for reasonableness of jurisdiction)