From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

IN RE TFT-LCD

United States District Court, N.D. California
May 27, 2011
No. M 07-1827 SI, MDL No. 1827, No. C 11-2225 SI (N.D. Cal. May. 27, 2011)

Opinion

No. M 07-1827 SI, MDL No. 1827, No. C 11-2225 SI.

May 27, 2011


ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER TO SERVE DEFENDANT CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES, LTD. THROUGH ITS U.S. COUNSEL


Plaintiff has filed a motion to serve a foreign defendant, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., through its U.S. counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). The Court has previously considered and granted a number of similar motions in this MDL. See, e.g., Order Re: Defendant Nexgen MediaTech Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process; Quashing Service; and Granting Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Motion to Serve Nexgen Through its Counsel Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(f)(3), Nov. 19, 2008 (Master Docket No. 725); see also Master Docket Nos. 1309, 1657, 1779, 2109, 2532, 2584, 2747, and 2748. Chunghwa has opposed these motions to preserve its objection to the manner of service, but has recognized this Court's inclination to permit service through its U.S. counsel.

Given the number of these motions, the Court is well acquainted with the content of Chunghwa's opposition. In order to save Chunghwa both the time and expense of filing another opposition brief, the Court rules as follows:

Specifically, Chunghwa's opposition briefs have argued 1) that plaintiffs have not met the requirements for invoking alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3); and 2) that service through its U.S. counsel violates due process.

For the reasons set forth in its prior orders, the Court finds that service under Rule 4(f)(3) is both available to plaintiff and appropriate in this case. See, e.g., Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014-15 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that service of process under Rule 4(f)(3) is not a "last resort," but "merely one means among several which enables service of process on an international defendant"). Further, due to Chunghwa's active participation in this MDL for the past three years, the Court finds that service through its U.S. counsel will fully comport with due process. See FMAC Loan Receivables v. Dagra, 228 F.R.D. 531, 534 (E.D. Va. 2005) (finding service on defendant through his attorney complied with due process because the numerous motions filed by defendant's attorney made it "abundantly clear" that the two had been in constant communication).

Absent further objection from Chunghwa, Office Depot may serve Chunghwa through its U.S. counsel after June 10, 2011. If Chunghwa has a specific objection not already addressed by the prior orders of this Court, it may file an opposition before that date.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff's motion to serve Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. through its U.S. counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). Docket No. 11 in C 11-2225 SI; Docket No. 2799 in M 07-1827 SI. Absent further objection from Chunghwa, plaintiff may serve Chunghwa through counsel after June 10, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

IN RE TFT-LCD

United States District Court, N.D. California
May 27, 2011
No. M 07-1827 SI, MDL No. 1827, No. C 11-2225 SI (N.D. Cal. May. 27, 2011)
Case details for

IN RE TFT-LCD

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Order Relates To…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: May 27, 2011

Citations

No. M 07-1827 SI, MDL No. 1827, No. C 11-2225 SI (N.D. Cal. May. 27, 2011)