In Re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation
781 F. Supp. 2d 955
| N.D. Cal. | 2011Background
- Dell filed March 12, 2010 in ND Cal alleging a global TFT-LCD price-fixing conspiracy by numerous defendants related to MDL No. 1827.
- Dell purchased TFT-LCD panels and finished products containing them domestically and abroad during the relevant period.
- Dell alleges a domestic price negotiation framework via Master Purchase Agreements that established a single worldwide price negotiated at Dell's Texas headquarters.
- MPAs with Hitachi, Sharp, and Toshiba governed Dell's purchases and included a requirement to comply with all applicable laws, including antitrust laws.
- Dell sought treble damages, injunctive relief, and related state-law claims (antitrust, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, contract breaches).
- Defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds; the court granted in part and denied in part, setting scheduling for amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FTAIA domestic injury scope? | Dell asserts domestic effects from US-based negotiations proximately caused foreign injury. | Defendants contend foreign transactions fall outside the Sherman Act under FTAIA absent domestic causation. | FTAIA domestic injury exception applied; claims survive dismissal. |
| Choice-of-law effect on state claims against Sharp, Hitachi, Toshiba? | MPAs' broad language encompasses all related actions; state claims fall within agreement scope. | Clauses only apply to contract claims; need NY/TX law for state antitrust claims. | Grants in part; dismisses certain state claims based on MPAs; allows amendment under NY for Sharp/Hitachi and TX for Toshiba. |
| Unjust enrichment claims viability? | Alternative theories permissible; same elements across states. | Unjust enrichment typically precluded where written contract governs subject matter; must specify state law. | Granted with leave to amend to specify the particular state law asserted. |
| Proximate causation in breach-of-contract claims? | Unlawful conduct breaches MPAs; direct/proximate injury from overcharges. | Proximate causation requires showing each breach proximately caused the overcharge. | Denied; allegations support proximate causation and denial of dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Ltd., 542 U.S. 155 (2004) (domestic injury exception requires proximate causation for foreign injury)
- In re Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust Litig. (DRAM), 546 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) (arbitrage theory fails to prove proximate causation under FTAIA)
- In re Monosodium Glutamate Antitrust Litig., 477 F.3d 535 (8th Cir. 2007) (foreign prices not proximately caused by domestic effects)
- Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. (Sun II), 534 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (domestic effect not necessarily proximate to foreign injury)
- Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litig., 504 F. Supp. 2d 777 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (arbitrage theory rejected; lack of proximate causation)
- Nedlloyd Lines B.V. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.4th 459 (1992) (broad choice-of-law clause governs all related actions arising from agreement)
- Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 810 F.2d 1066 (11th Cir. 1987) (forum/choice language can encompass broad range of claims arising from contract)
- Empagran I, 542 U.S. 155 (2004) (foreign injury not linked to domestic effects lacks FTAIA coverage)