IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
John Finn; Laura Townsend Fortman, Objectors-Appellants, v. Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America, Inc.; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.; Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Samsung SDI (Malaysia) SDN BHD; Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V.; Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda.; Shenzen Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Hitachi, Ltd.; Hitachi Displays, Ltd., AKA Japan Display, Inc.; Hitachi America, Ltd; Hitachi Asia, Ltd.; Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.; Panasonic Corporation, FKA Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (“MEI”), is a Japanese entity; Panasonic Corporation of North America; MT Picture Display Co., Ltd; Philips Koninklijke N.V.; Philips Electronics North America Corporation; Philips Taiwan Limited; Philips do Brasil Ltda.; Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.; Thomson SA, Defendants-Appellees.
IN RE: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Sean Hull; Gordon B. Morgan, Objectors-Appellants, v. Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America, Inc.; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.; Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Samsung SDI (Malaysia) SDN BHD; Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. De C.V.; Samsung SDI Brasil LTDA.; Shenzen Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Hitachi, Ltd.; Hitachi Displays, Ltd., AKA Japan Display, Inc.; Hitachi America, Ltd; Hitachi Asia, Ltd.; Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.; Panasonic Corporation, FKA Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (“MEI”), is a Japanese entity; Panasonic Corporation of North America; Mt Picture Display Co., Ltd; Philips Koninklijke N.V.; Philips Electronics North America Corporation; Philips Taiwan Limited; Philips Do Brasil LTDA.; Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.; Thomson SA, Defendants-Appellees.
IN RE: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Anthony Gianasca; Gloria Comeaux; Mina Ashkannejhad, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of the late R. Deryl Edwards, Jr.; Jeffrey Speaect; Rosemary Ciccone; Jeff Craig, Objectors-Appellants, v. Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America, Inc.; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.; Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Samsung SDI (Malaysia) SDN BHD; Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. De C.V.; Samsung SDI Brasil LTDA.; Shenzen Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Hitachi, Ltd.; Hitachi Displays, Ltd., AKA Japan Display, Inc.; Hitachi America, Ltd; Hitachi Asia, Ltd.; Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.; Panasonic Corporation, FKA Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (“MEI”), is a Japanese entity; Panasonic Corporation of North America; Mt Picture Display Co., Ltd; Philips Koninklijke N.V.; Philips Electronics North America Corporation; Philips Taiwan Limited; Philips Do Brasil LTDA.; Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.; Thomson SA, Defendants-Appellees.
IN RE: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Donnie Clifton, Objector-Appellant, v. Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America, Inc.; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.; Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Samsung SDI (Malaysia) SDN BHD; Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. De C.V.; Samsung SDI Brasil LTDA.; Shenzen Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Hitachi, Ltd.; Hitachi Displays, Ltd., AKA Japan Display, Inc.; Hitachi America, Ltd; Hitachi Asia, Ltd.; Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.; Panasonic Corporation, FKA Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (“MEI”), is a Japanese entity; Panasonic Corporation of North America; Mt Picture Display Co., Ltd; Philips Koninklijke N.V.; Philips Electronics North America Corporation; Philips Taiwan Limited; Philips Do Brasil LTDA.; Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.; Thomson SA, Defendants-Appellees.
IN RE: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Dan L. Williams & Co., Objector-Appellant, v. Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America, Inc.; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.; Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Samsung SDI (Malaysia) SDN BHD; Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. De C.V.; Samsung SDI Brasil LTDA.; Shenzen Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Hitachi, Ltd.; Hitachi Displays, Ltd., AKA Japan Display, Inc.; Hitachi America, Ltd; Hitachi Asia, Ltd.; Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.; Panasonic Corporation, FKA Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (“MEI”), is a Japanese entity; Panasonic Corporation of North America; Mt Picture Display Co., Ltd; Philips Koninklijke N.V.; Philips Electronics North America Corporation; Philips Taiwan Limited; Philips Do Brasil LTDA.; Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.; Thomson SA, Defendants-Appellees.
IN RE: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Rockhurst University; Gary Talewsky; Harry Garavanian, Objectors-Appellants, v. Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America, Inc.; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.; Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Samsung SDI (Malaysia) SDN BHD; Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. De C.V.; Samsung Sdi Brasil LTDA.; Shenzen Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Hitachi, Ltd.; Hitachi Displays, Ltd., AKA Japan Display, Inc.; Hitachi America, Ltd; Hitachi Asia, Ltd.; Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.; Panasonic Corporation, FKA Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (“MEI”), is a Japanese entity; Panasonic Corporation of North America; Mt Picture Display Co., Ltd; Philips Koninklijke N.V.; Philips Electronics North America Corporation; Philips Taiwan Limited; Philips Do Brasil LTDA.; Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.; Thomson SA, Defendants-Appellees.
IN RE: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Anthony Gianasca; Gloria Comeaux; Mina Ashkannejhad, individually and/or as Administrator of the Estate of the Late R. Deryl Edwards, Jr.; Jeffrey Speaect; Rosemary Ciccone; Jeff Craig, Movants-Appellants, v. Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America, Inc.; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.; Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Samsung SDI (Malaysia) SDN BHD; Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. De C.V.; Samsung SDI Brasil LTDA.; Shenzen Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Samsung SDi Co., Ltd.; Hitachi, Ltd.; Hitachi Displays, Ltd., AKA Japan Display, Inc.; Hitachi America, Ltd; Hitachi Asia, Ltd.; Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.; Panasonic Corporation, FKA Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (“MEI”), is a Japanese entity; Panasonic Corporation of North America; Mt Picture Display Co., Ltd; Philips Koninklijke N.V.; Philips Electronics North America Corporation; Philips Taiwan Limited; Philips Do Brasil LTDA.; Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.; Thomson SA, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16368, No. 16-16371, No. 16-16373, No. 16-16374, No. 16-16378, No. 16-16379

Decided: February 13, 2019

Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges, and Gary S. Katzmann,* Judge.

Mario Alioto, Trump, Alioto, Lauren C. Capurro, Attorney, Trump & Prescott, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Timothy Battin, Straus & Boies, LLP, Fairfax, VA, Daniel Edward Birkhaeuser, Esquire, Jennifer S. Rosenberg, Esquire, Attorney, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Walnut Creek, CA, Sylvie Kern, Law Offices of Sylvie Kulkin Kern, San Francisco, CA, Myron Moskovitz, Myron Moskovitz, Piedmont, CA, Joseph M. Patane, Attorney, Law Office of Joseph M. Patane, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee Jonathan Edward Fortman, Attorney, Law Office of Jonathan E. Fortman, LLC, Florissant, MO, John C. Kress, The Kress Law Firm, LLC, St. Louis, MO, Steve A. Miller, Attorney, Steve A. Miller, P.C., Denver, CO, for Objectors-Appellants Christopher M. Curran, Attorney, Dana E. Foster, Lucius B. Lau, White & Case LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America, Inc., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC, Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. Gary Halling, Esquire, James McGinnis, Michael W. Scarborough, Attorney, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, San Francisco, CA, Andrew Rhys Davies, Allen & Overy LLP, New York, NY, John Roberti, Allen & Overy LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Samsung SDI America, Inc., Samsung SDI (Malaysia) SDN BHD, Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. De C.V., Samsung SDI Brasil LTDA., Shenzen Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. Eliot A. Adelson, Esquire, Attorney, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Hitachi America, Ltd., Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. Aldo Badini, Attorney, Eva W. Cole, Molly M. Donovan, Litigation Counsel, Martin C. Geagan, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY, Kevin B. Goldstein, Esquire, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL, Adam C. Hemlock, David Yohai, Esquire, David Yolkut, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY, Ian L. Papendick, Winston & Strawn LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Mt Picture Display Co., Ltd. John M. Taladay, Erik T. Koons, Attorney, Baker Botts LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees Philips Koninklijke N.V., Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Philips Taiwan Limited, Philips Do Brasil LTDA. Kathy Osborn, Ryan Hurley, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Jeffrey Roberts, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Denver, CO, for Defendants-Appellees Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., Thomson SA

ORDER **

On November 8, 2018, in response to Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ motion for an indicative ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1, the District Court stated that, “with the benefit of hindsight ․ it erred in approving the parties’ original settlement” now pending on appeal in our court. The district court recognized that it should have provided recovery to class members in the Omitted Repealer States, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Hampshire, which necessarily affects the remaining issues on appeal: 1) the adequacy of representation under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4); and 2) the attorneys’ fees awarded to Lead Counsel.

We therefore remand this case so that the district court may reconsider its approval of the settlement.

The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ motion for a stay, filed October 1, 2018 (Dkt. No. 226), and the Objector-Appellants’ motion for leave to file an enlarged response (Dkt. Nos. 223 & 224) are DENIED as moot.

The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion Requesting Remand with Instructions Regarding: (1) The Plan of Distribution for the Settlements; and (2) The Fee Order, filed January 9, 2019 (Dkt. No. 230), is DENIED.¹

The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, filed January 29, 2019 (Dkt. No. 233), is GRANTED. The Reply brief has already been filed (Dkt. No 234). The request of Objectors-Appellants to file a Surreply to that Reply, contained within their Opposition to the Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (Dkt. 235), is DENIED as moot.

The motions to dismiss appeal voluntarily filed by Objectors-Appellants Sean Hull (Dkt. No. 198), John Finn and Laura Townsend Fortman (Dkt. No. 199), Donnie Clifton (Dkt. No. 200), and Josie Saik (Dkt. No. 222) are GRANTED.

We therefore REMAND to the District Court to reconsider its order on class certification and settlement approval. We do not vacate the order at this time.

The current panel will retain responsibility for future appeals in this case.

Each party shall bear its own costs of appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1. Objector-Appellants’ motion to supplement the record on appeal (Dkt. No. 120) and motion to strike Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ response to the same (Dkt. No. 150) are DENIED as moot. Objector-Appellants’ and Defendant-Appellees’ motions to take judicial notice (Dkt. Nos. 130, 197) are DENIED as moot.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law