659 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2011), 11-16862, Washington v. Chimei Innolux Corp.

Docket Nº:11-16862.
Citation:659 F.3d 842
Opinion Judge:THOMAS, Circuit Judge:
Party Name:WASHINGTON State; The People of the State of California, ex rel. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of the State of California, as parens patriae on behalf of natural persons residing in the state; The State of California; Alameda County; City of Long Beach; City of Los Angeles; City of Oakland; City of San Diego; City and County of San Francisco;
Attorney:John M. Grenfell and Jacob R. Sorenson; Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Francisco, CA, for appellant Sharp Corporation. Christopher B. Hockett and Neal A. Potischman; Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Menlo Park, CA, for appellant Chimei Innolux Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., a...
Judge Panel:Before: SIDNEY R. THOMAS and N. RANDY SMITH, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON OLIVER, JR., Chief District Judge.[*]
Case Date:October 03, 2011
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 842

659 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2011)

WASHINGTON State; The People of the State of California, ex rel. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of the State of California, as parens patriae on behalf of natural persons residing in the state; The State of California; Alameda County; City of Long Beach; City of Los Angeles; City of Oakland; City of San Diego; City and County of San Francisco; City of San Jose; Contra Costa County; Corona-Norco Unified School District; Elk Grove Unified School District; Fresno County; Fresno Unified School District; Garden Grove Unified School District; Kern County; Los Angeles County; Los Angeles Unified School District; Oakland Unified School District; Orange County; Sacramento County; San Diego City Unified School District; San Francisco Unified School District; San Joaquin County; San Juan Unified School District; San Mateo County; 18753 Santa Clara County; Santa Barbara County; Sonoma County; Sweetwater Union High School District; Tulare County; Ventura County; The Regents of the University Of California, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

CHIMEI INNOLUX CORP.; Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc.; CMO Japan Co., Ltd.; Epson Imaging Devices Corporation; Hitachi, Ltd.; Hitachi Displays, Ltd.; Hitachi Electronics Devices (USA), Inc.; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Sharp Corporation; Sharp Electronics Corporation; Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc.; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.; Toshiba Mobile Display Technology Co., Ltd., fka Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd.; Epson Electronics America, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 11-16862.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

October 3, 2011

Argued and Submitted Sept. 13, 2011.

Page 843

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 844

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 845

John M. Grenfell and Jacob R. Sorenson; Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Francisco, CA, for appellant Sharp Corporation.

Christopher B. Hockett and Neal A. Potischman; Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Menlo Park, CA, for appellant Chimei Innolux Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., and CMO Japan Co., Ltd.

Melvin R. Goldman, Stephen P. Freccero, Derek F. Foran, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA, for appellant Epson Imaging Devices Corp. and Epson Electronics America, Inc.

Kent M. Roger and Herman J. Hoying; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, CA, for appellants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., and Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.

Simon J. Frankel and Jeffrey M. Davidson, Covington & Burling LLP, San Francisco, CA, for appellants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Bijal Vakil, Palo Alto, CA; Christopher M. Curran and Kristen J. McAhren, Washington, D.C., and John H. Chung, New York, NY, White & Case LLP, for appellants Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd., Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.

Kamala Harris, Attorney General, State of California, and Kathleen E. Foote, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., Esther H. La, and Adam Miller, Deputy Attorneys General, San Francisco, CA, for appellee Attorney General of the State of California.

Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General, State of Washington, and Jonathan A. Mark, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Brady R. Johnson, Senior Counsel, Office of the Attorney General, Seattle, WA, for appellee Attorney General of Washington.

Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, State of Idaho, and Brett T. DeLange, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, ID, for amicus curiae States of Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. 3:10-cv-05212-SI, 3:10-cv-05711-SI.

Before: SIDNEY R. THOMAS and N. RANDY SMITH, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON OLIVER, JR., Chief District Judge.[*]

Page 846

OPINION

THOMAS, Circuit Judge:

This appeal presents the question, inter alia, of whether parens patriae actions filed by state Attorneys General constitute class actions within the meaning of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (" CAFA" ), Pub.L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453, 1711-15). We conclude that they do not, and we affirm the remand order entered by the district court.

I

The Attorneys General of Washington and California filed parens patriae actions in their states' courts alleging that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix the prices of thin-film transistor liquid crystal display (" TFT-LCD" ) panels, and that state agencies and consumers were injured by paying inflated prices for products containing TFT-LCD panels.

The complaints allege that between 1998 and 2006, Defendants engaged in an international conspiracy to fix the prices of TFT-LCD panels in violation of state antitrust laws, which resulted in higher prices for state agencies and citizens purchasing products containing TFT-LCD panels.1

The Attorney General of Washington, in the name of the state and as parens patriae on behalf of state...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP