27 F.Supp.3d 1002
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Defendant Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Co. (BMCC) is a Beijing-based joint venture (Panasonic subsidiary connections alleged) accused of conspiring with other CRT manufacturers from ~1998–2007 to fix CRT prices affecting U.S. markets and customers.
- Plaintiffs are Direct Action Plaintiffs (U.S. retailers/distributors) who purchased finished CRT products that allegedly contained price-fixed CRTs or were injured by inflated prices.
- Plaintiffs allege BMCC attended price-fixing meetings in China, shared marketing/sales information (including U.S. customer data), discussed prices in U.S. dollars, and sold CRTs to affiliates tied to U.S. sales.
- BMCC denies U.S. contacts: no U.S. sales, offices, employees, property, bank accounts, or direct control over Panasonic’s resales; contends most sales were to Chinese customers.
- Procedurally, BMCC moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper service; the MDL court had earlier authorized alternative service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) by mailing process to BMCC’s U.S. counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction — specific | BMCC purposefully directed a price-fixing conspiracy at the U.S.; its conduct caused U.S. injury (prima facie contacts shown by meeting notes, emails, and alleged sales to U.S. affiliates) | BMCC lacked U.S. contacts; actions occurred in China; Panasonic’s downstream U.S. sales are not BMCC’s conduct | Court: Specific jurisdiction exists — plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of purposeful direction and a nexus to U.S. injuries; exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable |
| Waiver of jurisdictional defense | BMCC participated in MDL and earlier filings without raising personal jurisdiction, so it waived the defense | A party does not waive personal jurisdiction defense by litigating related cases; BMCC preserved the defense in these actions | Court: No waiver — Calderon controls; BMCC did not consent to jurisdiction here |
| Service of process | Service by mail to BMCC’s D.C. counsel (per court order under Rule 4(f)(3)) was proper and provided notice | Service should have used Hague Convention channels (China objected to Article 10) or foreign agent; Rule 4(f)(3) invalid here | Court: Service via BMCC’s U.S. counsel under the prior Service Order was permissible, not prohibited by the Hague Convention, and satisfied due process |
| Reasonableness/comity and forum adequacy | Plaintiffs’ U.S. interests and MDL efficiency justify adjudication in U.S. forum | Litigation burden on BMCC, comity with China, and availability of Chinese forum argue against U.S. jurisdiction | Court: Considering the seven Burger King/Bancroft factors, exercising jurisdiction is reasonable; China not shown to be adequate alternative forum |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes minimum contacts/due process test for personal jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (reasonableness factors for exercising jurisdiction)
- Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat., Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (but-for nexus and purposeful direction analysis)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (three-prong test for specific jurisdiction/purposeful availment)
- Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (Rule 4(f)(3) service by delivery to defendant's attorney)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Calderon, 422 F.3d 827 (waiver law: related litigation does not necessarily waive personal jurisdiction defense)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (limits on general jurisdiction and international comity concerns)