Court Denies Interlocutory Appeal Request in Cathode Ray Tubing Antitrust MDL

In In re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Northern District of California Judge Samuel Conti rejected Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and other electronic makers’ request for an interlocutory appeal of a ruling that indirect purchasers of allegedly price-fixed cathode ray tubes could pursue antitrust claims under an exception to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Illinois Brick ruling.  This case is part of the much larger multidistrict litigation over the alleged collusive behavior that includes both direct and indirect purchasers of cathode ray tubes.  In November, Judge Conti ruled that the nine retailers who purchased finished products from Samsung and other defendants that contained the tubes had standing to litigate price-fixing claims under the so-called ownership or control exception to the Illinois Brick ruling.  According to the Illinois Brick ruling, only the first party in a distribution chain to purchase price-fixed products has standing to sue under the Clayton Act.  In 1980, the Ninth Circuit carved out an exception to the Illinois Brick rule in Royal Printing Co. v. Kimberly-Clark Co., permitting a printer to sue paper manufacturers for antitrust damages even though they purchased the allegedly price-fixed paper through a distributor.  The court in the present case used this exception to hold that retailers had standing to bring the current claims.

Defendants moved for an interlocutory appeal, arguing that the appeal should be granted because the plaintiffs would lack federal antitrust standing if they were ineligible for the ownership or control exception.  The court denied defendants’ request, holding that resolution of the specific issue — whether the exception applies to the retailers — would not be controlling or material to the overall outcome of the case and would not speed up completion of the litigation.  Additionally, the Ninth Circuit’s rule that was applied in the November decision is not disputed by other circuits, so there is no substantial ground for difference of opinion on this point, according to the court.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*