State v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 91391–9

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Writing for the CourtGonzález, J.
Citation375 P.3d 1035,186 Wash.2d 169
PartiesThe State of Washington, Respondent, v. LG Electronics, Inc.; Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. a/k/a Royal Philips Electronics N.V. ; Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd.; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. f/k/a SAmsung Display Device Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. De C.V. ; Samsung SDI Brasil LTDA. ; Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co., LTD.; Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung Sdi (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. ; Panasonic Corporation of North America; Hitachi Displays, Ltd.; Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.; and Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Petitioners, and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.; Philips Electronics Industries; Philips Electronics North America Corporation; Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.; Hitachi, Ltd.; MT Picture Display Co.; Panasonic Corporation f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.; Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd.; CPTF Optronics Co. Ltd.; and Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., Defendants.
Docket NumberNo. 91391–9
Decision Date21 July 2016

186 Wash.2d 169
375 P.3d 1035

The State of Washington, Respondent
v.
LG Electronics, Inc.; Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. a/k/a Royal Philips Electronics N.V. ; Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd.; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. f/k/a SAmsung Display Device Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. De C.V. ; Samsung SDI Brasil LTDA.
; Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co., LTD.; Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung Sdi (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. ; Panasonic Corporation of North America; Hitachi Displays, Ltd.; Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.; and Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Petitioners
and
LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.; Philips Electronics Industries; Philips Electronics North America Corporation; Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.; Hitachi, Ltd.; MT Picture Display Co.; Panasonic Corporation f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.; Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd.; CPTF Optronics Co. Ltd.; and Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn.
Bhd., Defendants.

No. 91391–9

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Filed July 21, 2016


David C. Lundsgaard, Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP, Pier 70, 2801 Alaskan Way Suite 300, Seattle, WA, 98121–1128, Robert Douglas Stewart, Kipling Law Group PLLC, 4464 Fremont Avenue N Suite 300, Seattle, WA, 98103–7291, J. Mark Little, Aaron Streett, Baker Botts, LLP, One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana Street, Houston, TX, 77002–4995, Larry Steven Gangnes, John R. Neeleman, Lane Powell PC, P.O. Box 91302, 1420 5th Avenue Suite 4200, Seattle, WA, 98111–9402, Aric Hamilton Jarrett, Attorney at Law, 600 University St. Suite 3600, Seattle, WA, 98101–4109, Timothy W. Snider, Stoel Rives LLP, 760 SW 9th Avenue Suite 3000, Portland, OR, 97205–2584, Molly A. Terwilliger, Yarmuth Wilsdon PLLC, 1420 5th Avenue Suite 1400, Seattle, WA, 98101–3336, Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis, 555 California Street, San Francisco, CA, 94104, Counsel for Petitioners.

Robert Douglas Stewart, Kipling Law Group PLLC, 4464 Fremont Avenue N Suite 300, Seattle, WA, 98103–7291, Mathew Lane Harrington, Stokes Lawrence, PS, 1420 5th Avenue Suite 3000, Seattle, WA, 98101–2393, Timothy W. Snider, Stoel Rives LLP, 760 SW 9th Avenue Suite 3000, Portland, OR, 97205–2584, Aric Hamilton Jarrett, Attorney at Law, 600 University St. Suite 3600, Seattle, WA, 98101–4109, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY, 10166, David L. Yohai, David Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY, 10153, Molly A. Terwilliger, Yarmuth Wilsdon PLLC, 1420 5th Avenue Suite 1400, Seattle, WA, 98101–3336, Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis, 555 California Street, San Francisco, CA, 94104, Counsel for Defendants.

375 P.3d 1038

David Michael Kerwin, Washington State Attorney General's Office, 4333 Brooklyn Avenue NE, Seattle, WA, 98195–1016, Brady R. Johnson, Fremont Law, 1752 NW Market St. # 617, Seattle, WA, 98107–5264, Peter B. Gonick, Washington Attorney General's Office, 1125 Washington St. SE, P.O. Box 40100, Olympia, WA, 98504–0100, Jonathan A. Mark, Washington State Attorney General, 800 5th Avenue Suite 2000, Seattle, WA, 98104–3188, Counsel for Respondent.

George M. Ahrend, Ahrend Law Firm PLLC, 100 E Broadway Avenue, Moses Lake, WA, 98837–1740, Bryan Patrick Harnetiaux, Attorney at Law, 517 E 17th Avenue, Spokane, WA, 99203–2210, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington State Association for Justice Foundation.

Kristina Silja Bennard, Yarmuth Wilsdon PLLC, 1420 5th Avenue Suite 1400, Seattle, WA, 98101–3336, Amicus Curiae on behalf of U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Stewart Andrew Estes, Keating, Bucklin & McCormack, Inc., P.S., 800 Fifth Avenue Suite 4141, Seattle, WA, 98104–3175, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Defense Trial Lawyers.

Christopher Weldon Nicoll, Noah Jaffe, Shannon Leigh Trivett, Nicoll Black & Feig, 1325 4th Avenue Suite 1650, Seattle, WA, 98101–2506, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Dri—the Voice of the Defense Bar.

González, J.

186 Wash.2d 173

¶ 1 The State of Washington sued more than 20 foreign electronics manufacturing companies (including the petitioners) for price fixing. The State claimed the foreign companies conspired to fix prices by selling CRTs (cathode ray tubes) into international streams of commerce intending they be incorporated into products sold at inflated prices in large numbers in Washington State.

¶ 2 The trial court dismissed on the pleadings, finding it did not have jurisdiction over the foreign companies. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the State alleged sufficient minimum contacts with Washington to satisfy both the long arm statute and the due process clause. We affirm the Court of Appeals.

Facts

¶ 3 In 2012, the State, through the attorney general, filed suit against a number of foreign electronics manufacturers. The State's complaint alleged that between March 1995 and November 2007, the defendants violated the antitrust provision of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86,030, by conspiring to raise prices and set production levels in the market for CRTs, CRTs were the dominant display technology used in televisions and computer monitors before the advent of LCD (liquid crystal display) panels and plasma display technologies. Due to the unlawful conspiracy, the State alleged, Washington consumers and the State of Washington itself paid supracompetitive prices for the products.

¶ 4 According to the State's complaint, North America was the largest market for CRT televisions and computer

186 Wash.2d 174

monitors during the conspiracy period. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 24. In 1995 alone, 28 million CRT monitors were purchased in North America. Id. CRT monitors “accounted for over 90 percent of the retail market for computer monitors in North America in 1999,” CRT televisions “accounted for 73 percent of the North American television market in 2004,” and “the CRT industry was dominated by relatively few companies.” Id. at 17, 15. In 2004, four of the defendants together held a collective 78 percent share of the global CRT market. Id. at 15. The State alleged that during the conspiracy period, all the defendants manufactured, sold, and/or distributed CRT products, directly or indirectly, to customers throughout Washington.

¶ 5 The State asserted jurisdiction pursuant to the long-arm provision of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.160. The State also asserted that venue is proper in King County in part because

the Defendants' and their co-conspirators' activities were intended to, and did have, a substantial and foreseeable effect on Washington State trade and commerce; the conspiracy affected the price of CRTs and CRT Products purchased in Washington; and all Defendants knew or expected
375 P.3d 1039
that products containing their CRTs would be sold in the U.S. and into Washington.

CP at 3.

¶ 6 Before any discovery took place, certain defendants (collectively Companies) moved to dismiss the State's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction under CR 12(b)(2). The Companies supported their motions to dismiss with affidavits and declarations stating that the Companies did not sell any products directly to Washington consumers and did not conduct any business in Washington. The Companies also requested attorney fees under Washington's long-arm statute.

¶ 7 The State argued it had pleaded facts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction at the pleading stage. The State also argued that if the trial court were to consider the

186 Wash.2d 175

Companies' affidavits and declarations, the motions to dismiss would necessarily be converted into CR 56 motions for summary judgment. The State requested the opportunity to conduct general and jurisdictional discovery. The Companies opposed the State's discovery request.

¶ 8 The trial court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without expressly addressing the State's discovery request. Id. at 578–79. The trial court also authorized the Companies to request costs and attorney fees. Id. at 597. In March 2013, the trial court entered final judgment with prejudice under CR 54(b). Id. at 598–608. It then granted the requests for costs and attorney fees.1 Id. at 1070–83, The State appealed.2

¶ 9 The Court of Appeals reversed. State v. LG Elecs., Inc. , 185 Wash.App. 394, 425, 341 P.3d 346 (2015). It held that the State had sufficiently alleged facts establishing personal jurisdiction and that an assertion of jurisdiction did not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Id. at 423–24, 341 P.3d 346. The Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney fees below because the Companies were no longer prevailing parties, and declined to award fees on appeal. Id. at 425, 341 P.3d 346.

¶ 10 We granted the Companies' petition for review. State v. LG Elecs., Inc. , 183 Wash.2d 1002, 349 P.3d 856 (2015). The Companies are supported by the Washington Defense Trial Lawyers and DRI—The Voice of the Defense Bar (on one brief) and the United States Chamber of Commerce as amici curiae. The State is supported in part by the Washington

186...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • King Cnty. v. Vinci Constr. Grands Projets/Parsons RCI/Frontier-Kemper, No. 92744-8
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • July 6, 2017
    ...applied Marks only when evaluating split opinions from the United States Supreme Court. See, e.g., State v. LG Elecs., Inc., 186 Wash.2d 169, 181, 375 P.3d 1035 (2016). Without explicitly adopting Marks , however, we have applied it. This case provides an opportunity for us to end an era of......
  • Downing v. Losvar, 36298-1-III
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • April 14, 2022
    ...novo a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. State v. LG Electronics, Inc., 186 Wn.2d 169, 176, 375 P.3d 1035 (2016). The Okanogan County Superior Court resolved the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction without entertaining live testimony and c......
  • Downing v. Losvar, 36298-1-III
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • April 14, 2022
    ...court reviews de novo a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. State v. LG Electronics, Inc. , 186 Wash.2d 169, 176, 375 P.3d 1035 (2016). The Okanogan County Superior Court resolved the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction without entertaining ......
  • Noll v. Am. Biltrite Inc., No. 91998-4
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • June 8, 2017
    ...Washington's laws. Because the parties and trial court did not have the benefit of our recent decision in State v. LG Electronics, Inc., 186 Wash.2d 169, 375 P.3d 1035 (2016), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 648, 196 L.Ed.2d 522 (2017), or the recently disclosed evidence of Special E......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • King Cnty. v. Vinci Constr. Grands Projets/Parsons RCI/Frontier-Kemper, No. 92744-8
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • July 6, 2017
    ...applied Marks only when evaluating split opinions from the United States Supreme Court. See, e.g., State v. LG Elecs., Inc., 186 Wash.2d 169, 181, 375 P.3d 1035 (2016). Without explicitly adopting Marks , however, we have applied it. This case provides an opportunity for us to end an era of......
  • Downing v. Losvar, 36298-1-III
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • April 14, 2022
    ...novo a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. State v. LG Electronics, Inc., 186 Wn.2d 169, 176, 375 P.3d 1035 (2016). The Okanogan County Superior Court resolved the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction without entertaining live testimony and c......
  • Downing v. Losvar, 36298-1-III
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • April 14, 2022
    ...court reviews de novo a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. State v. LG Electronics, Inc. , 186 Wash.2d 169, 176, 375 P.3d 1035 (2016). The Okanogan County Superior Court resolved the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction without entertaining ......
  • Noll v. Am. Biltrite Inc., No. 91998-4
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • June 8, 2017
    ...Washington's laws. Because the parties and trial court did not have the benefit of our recent decision in State v. LG Electronics, Inc., 186 Wash.2d 169, 375 P.3d 1035 (2016), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 648, 196 L.Ed.2d 522 (2017), or the recently disclosed evidence of Special E......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT