Case Information
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6
In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) Case No. 07-cv-05944-JST 7 ANTITRUST LITIGATION 8 ORDER GRANTING MOTION SUGGESTING REMAND
9 This Document Relates To: Re: ECF No. 4985 10 Electrograph Sys., Inc., et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al. , No. 11-cv-01656; Electrograph Sys., Inc., et al. v. Technicolor SA, et al. , No. 13-cv-05724; Interbond Corp. of Am. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al. , No. 11-cv-06275; Interbond Corp. of Am. v. Technicolor SA, et al. , No. 13-cv-05727; Office Depot, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al. , No. 11-cv-06276; Office Depot, Inc. v. Technicolor SA, et al. , No. 13-cv-05726; CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al. , No. 11-cv-06396; Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al. , No. 11-cv-06397; P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp., et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al. , No. 12-cv-02648; P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp., et al. v. Technicolor SA, et al. , No. 13-cv-05725; Schultze Agency Servs., LLC v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al. , No. 12-cv-02649; Schultze Agency Servs., LLC v. Technicolor SA, et al. , No. 13-cv-05668; Tech Data Corp., et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al. , No. 13-cv-00157.
Before the Court is the Motion Suggesting Remand brought by Electrograph Systems, Inc., Electrograph Technologies Corp., Office Depot, Inc., CompuCom Systems, Inc., Interbond Corporation of America, P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, ABC Appliance, Inc., Schultze Agency Services LLC on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and Tweeter Newco, LLC, Tech Data Corporation and Tech Data Product Management, Inc., and Costco Wholesale Corporation’s (the “Remand Plaintiffs”). The Court will grant the motion.
This multi-district antitrust case concerning cathode ray tube technology has now reached the end of pretrial proceedings. On April 12, 2016, the Remand Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion for leave to file the present motion, ECF No. 4555, which the Court granted. ECF No. 4618. Then, on October 26, 2016, they filed the present motion suggesting remand. ECF No. 4985. Defendants oppose the motion. ECF No. 5011.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the JPML) may transfer actions from various districts to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). The JPML must remand those actions to the transferor courts “no later than the conclusion of pretrial proceedings in the transferee court.” Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 36-37 (1998).
The Remand Plaintiffs request an order suggesting that their cases be remanded to the transferor courts, to be entered by the Court upon resolution of seven identified motions that were outstanding at the time Plaintiffs filed the present motion, [1] because at that time “all MDL pretrial proceedings in the Remand Plaintiffs’ cases will be complete.” ECF No. 4985 at 3.
The Court agrees. Because those seven motions are now resolved [2] and pretrial proceedings are complete, remand is required. See Lexecon, 523 U.S at 35. The statute governing multidistrict litigation procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1407, creates an obligation to remand actions “at or before the conclusion” of pretrial proceedings that is “impervious to judicial discretion.” See Lexecon, 523 U.S. at 35.
Defendants argue that the present motion is “premature” because the Remand Plaintiffs filed the motion before the seven then-pending motions were resolved, although they requested that the Court not suggest remand until resolution had occurred. See ECF No. 5011 at 3. It is hard to see why the distinction makes any difference. Moreover, since pretrial proceedings are now complete, remand is obligatory. See Lexecon, 523 U.S. at 35. Requiring the Remand Plaintiffs to refile a duplicative motion now would not promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation or add anything useful to the decision-making process.
Defendants also contend that they need time after resolution of the pretrial motions, but before the Court suggests remand, to “gaug[e] the value of any potential settlements.” ECF No. 5011 at 2. But 28 U.S.C. § 1407 does not require, or even mention, such a period of time. And if the Court’s recent rulings have provided additional information that makes it easier for the parties to settle their cases, they can finish that task whether the cases are venued in San Francisco or in their original courts. Finally, after presenting their arguments, Defendants’ Opposition requests only that the present motion be denied “until pre-trial proceedings are complete.” ECF No. 5011 at 5. They now are.
CONCLUSION
The Court grants the motion suggesting remand. Pursuant to Rule 10.1(b) of the Rules of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the Court SUGGESTS that the Panel remand the following actions:
For remand to the Eastern District of New York: Electrograph Sys., Inc., et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al. , N.D. Cal. No. 11-cv-01656; Electrograph Sys., Inc., et al. v. Technicolor SA, et al. , N.D. Cal. No. 13-cv-05724; P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp., et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al. , N.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-02648; P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp., et al. v. Technicolor SA, et al. , N.D. Cal. No. 13-cv-05725; Schultze Agency Servs., LLC v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al. , N.D. Cal. No. 12-cv-02649; Schultze Agency Servs., LLC v. Technicolor SA, et al. , N.D. Cal. No. 13-cv-05668.
For remand to the Southern District of Florida: Interbond Corp. of Am. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al. , N.D. Cal. No. 11-cv-06275; Interbond Corp. of Am. v. Technicolor SA, et al. , N.D. Cal. No. 13-cv-05727; Office Depot, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al. , N.D. Cal. No. 11-cv-06276; Office Depot, Inc. v. Technicolor SA, et al. , N.D. Cal. No. 13-cv-05726.
For remand to the Middle District of Florida: Tech Data Corp., et al. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al. , N.D. Cal. No. 13-cv-00157. For remand to the Northern District of Texas: CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al. , N.D. Cal. No. 11-cv-06396. For remand to the Western District of Washington: Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al. , N.D. Cal. No. 11-cv-06397.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 5, 2017 ______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
NOTES
[1] Five were summary judgment motions. See ECF Nos. 2976, 2984, 3001, 3037, 3040. Two were 28 Daubert motions. See ECF Nos. 3170, 3172.
[2] See ECF Nos. 5111, 5105, 5119, 4559, 5120, 5102, and 5136.