TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp.
270 F.R.D. 535
N.D. Cal.2010Background
- Plaintiff TracFone filed an antitrust complaint on May 4, 2010, naming Chunghwa among numerous defendants.
- The case was transferred to this district and related to MDL No. 1827, coordinating pretrial proceedings.
- Chunghwa is a Taiwan corporation; Taiwan is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on Service Abroad, so Hague service is unavailable.
- Plaintiff requested waiver of service for all defendants; Chunghwa did not join the waiver stipulation.
- Plaintiff did not attempt letter rogatory service on Chunghwa and seeks service through Chunghwa’s U.S. counsel under Rule 4(f)(3).
- The court grants the motion, finding service through U.S. counsel appropriate to facilitate MDL coordination and due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 4(f)(3) service through U.S. counsel is proper | 4(f)(3) allows non-district service directed by court when not prohibited by international agreement. | Service should be pursued via letters rogatory before alternative methods. | Yes; 4(f)(3) service through U.S. counsel is appropriate. |
| Whether plaintiff must exhaust letters rogatory before 4(f)(3) relief | Letters rogatory are costly and time-consuming; MDL coordination warrants faster relief. | Letters rogatory should be attempted first for foreign defendants. | Not required; 4(f)(3) may be used when suitable. |
| Whether service through U.S. counsel comports with due process | Chunghwa has prior MDL involvement through U.S. counsel; notice and participation imply due process. | Not stated explicitly; challenge would rely on lack of notice. | Yes; due process is satisfied given Chunghwa’s ongoing U.S. counsel relationships. |
| Whether the MDL context favors alternative service | MDL coordination and discovery would be impeded without timely service. | Not argued separately in this excerpt; focus is on method and timing. | Yes; the court grants 4(f)(3) service to facilitate MDL coordination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio International Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (4(f)(3) service is a permissible method among alternatives, not a last resort)
- FMAC Loan Receivables v. Dagra, 228 F.R.D. 531 (E.D. Va. 2005) (numerous filings by defendant's counsel support notice and due process)