MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, 4:07-cv-05944

Background:

The JPML centralized CRT price-fixing cases in 2008 into MDL No. 1917.
In July 2016 the district court granted final approval of settlements between the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (IPPs) and several defendants; objections and appeals followed.
The court later concluded it erred in approving a settlement provision that released claims of class members in certain "omitted repealer" states without compensation and the Ninth Circuit remanded for reconsideration.
On remand the court confirmed lead IPP counsel, appointed separate counsel for the ORS and NRS subclasses, and referred settlement efforts to a magistrate judge.
In 2019 Eleanor Lewis (an NRS member) and members of the ORS subclass sought to intervene and to amend pleadings; the court denied renewed intervention motions and directed them to file in the proper fora or seek JPML transfer.
Movants filed Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend the denial; the court denied those motions for failing to show clear error, newly discovered evidence, manifest injustice, or change in controlling law.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is warranted for alleged clear error about MDL statute barring direct intervention	Lewis/ORS say the court erred in concluding MDL statute prevents direct intervention or amendment to add named plaintiffs	Defendants say Movants rehash arguments, raise new claims untimely, and MDL procedures limit adding plaintiffs who never filed or were transferred	Denied; Rule 59(e) relief not shown — Movants rehashed or belatedly raised arguments and gave no basis for altering the order
Whether Rule 23 allows district court to create subclasses and appoint new representatives within MDL to cure conflicts	Movants contend Rule 23 subclass protections survive in MDL proceedings and the court should appoint adequate representatives	Opponents contend Movants could have raised this earlier and cannot use reconsideration to present new theories	Denied; argument was raised belatedly and cannot be shoehorned into Rule 59(e) to obtain rehearing
Whether MDL procedures permit adding named plaintiffs who never filed suit in federal court or had not been transferred by JPML	Movants argue they seek to intervene as named plaintiffs tethered to pending actions rather than start new suits	Defendants rely on MDL jurisprudence that transferee court jurisdiction is not invoked for plaintiffs who never filed or were not transferred	Denied; court follows MDL precedent that plaintiffs must have proper filing/transfer to be added in the MDL
Whether prior stipulation-based amendments in this MDL create inconsistency or preclude the court’s MDL procedural analysis	Movants point to earlier, unopposed stipulated amendments that added named plaintiffs	Defendants note those were unopposed stipulations that did not require the court to address MDL consolidation procedures	Denied; prior unopposed stipulated amendments do not establish clear error or change the court’s application of MDL rules

Key Cases Cited

In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (J.P.M.L. 2008) (JPML centralization order for CRT cases)
Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy used sparingly)
Rishor v. Ferguson, 822 F.3d 482 (9th Cir. 2016) (grounds for reconsideration enumerated)
Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2000) (Rule 59(e) cannot be used to raise arguments that could have been presented earlier)
Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc., 282 F.R.D. 216 (D. Ariz. 2012) (describing exacting standard for clear error)
United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (reconsideration may not rehash prior arguments)
Young v. Peery, 163 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (motions for reconsideration must do more than recapitulate previously considered cases)