Wortman et al v. Air New Zealand et al

RESPONSE

N.D. Cal.August 29, 2011

v LA W O FFIC ES COTCHETT, PITRE, & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Joseph W. Cotchett (36324) Niall P. McCarthy (160175) Steven N. Williams (175489) Niki B. Okcu (229345) Eric J. Buescher (271323) COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: 650-697-6000 Facsimile: 650-697-0577 jcotchett@cpmlegal.com nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com swilliams@cpmlegal.com nokcu@cpmlegal.com ebuescher@cpmlegal.com Michael D. Hausfeld HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: 202-540-7200 Facsimile: 202-540-7201 mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com Michael P. Lehmann (77152) Christopher L. Lebsock (184546) Jon T. King (205073) HAUSFELD LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-633-1908 Facsimile: 415-358-4980 mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com clebsock@hausfeldllp.com jking@hausfeldllp.com Interim Class Counsel for the Putative Class See signature page for complete list of Counsel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION IN RE TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER AIR TRANSPORTATION ANTITRUST LITIGATION __________________________________ This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS __________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 07-CV-5634-CRB, MDL No. 1913 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EUROPEAN CARRIERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Date: September 30, 2011 Time: 10:00 a.m. Location: Courtroom 6, 17 Floorth Judge: Hon. Charles R. Breyer MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EUROPEAN CARRIERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 07-cv-05634-CRB; MDL No. 1913 Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 533 Filed 08/29/11 Page 1 of 17 v LA W O FFIC ES COTCHETT, PITRE, & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 III. ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. The Federal Discovery Rule is Applicable to Plaintiffs’ Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 B. Because Plaintiffs May Properly Invoke the Discovery Rule, they Need not “Relate Back” In Order to Toll the Statute of Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 C. Even If Plaintiffs Were Required to Satisfy the Rule 15(c) Requirements, Plaintiffs Do So Because They Only Received Notice of the European Carrier’s Potential Identity as Defendants From a Cooperating Defendant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 D. Plaintiffs Have Adequately Pled Fraudulent Concealment .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 IV. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EUROPEAN CARRIERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 07-cv-05634-CRB; MDL No. 1913 i Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 533 Filed 08/29/11 Page 2 of 17 v LA W O FFIC ES COTCHETT, PITRE, & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Brink v. First Credit Resources 57 F. Supp. 2d 858 (D. Ariz. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Conmar Corp. v. Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc., 858 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1988) cert. denied sub nom. VSL, Inc. v. Conmar Corp., 488 U.S. 1010 (1989) . . . . . . . . . 3, 4, 7 E.W. French & Sons, Inc. v. General Portland, Inc., 885 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 In re Aftermarket Filters Antitrust Litig., No. 08 C 4883, 2009 WL 3754041 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litig., 782 F. Supp. 487 (C.D. Cal. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 4 In re Copper Antitrust Litig., 436 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Price Fixing Litig., No. 1:05-CV-00979-SEB-VS, 2006 WL 2849711 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . 3 In re Rubber Chems. Antitrust Litig., 504 F. Supp. 2d 777 (N.D. Cal. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig., 743 F.Supp.2d 827 (N.D. Ill. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., No. 99-197 (TFH), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7397 (D.D.C. May 9, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Kilkenny v. Arco Marine, Inc., 800 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6 Korn v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 724 F.2d 1397 (9th Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Mangum v. Action Collection Serv., Inc., 575 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab., 135 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Percy v. San Francisco General Hospital, 841 F.2d 975 (9th Cir. Cal. 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EUROPEAN CARRIERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 07-cv-05634-CRB; MDL No. 1913 ii Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 533 Filed 08/29/11 Page 3 of 17 v LA W O FFIC ES COTCHETT, PITRE, & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Schwartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Trotter v. Int'l Long-shoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 704 F.2d 1141 (9th Cir. 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Wells v. HBO & Co., 813 F. Supp. 1561 (N.D. Ga. 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 STATUTES AND RULES Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 15(c).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 5, 6 Rule 23(g). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EUROPEAN CARRIERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 07-cv-05634-CRB; MDL No. 1913 iii Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 533 Filed 08/29/11 Page 4 of 17 v LA W O FFIC ES COTCHETT, PITRE, & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The discovery rule precludes dismissal of any Plaintiffs’ claims against the European Carriers, and to the extent that the discovery rule does not apply Plaintiffs have adequately pled fraudulent concealment in accordance with the Court’s direction. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ allegations are otherwise sufficient to satisfy the relation back doctrine and the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). Plaintiffs were not aware, and could not have been aware, of the facts giving rise to their claims against the European Carrier defendants Societe Air France, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, and SAS AB (collectively the “European Carrier Defendants”) until a participant in the conspiracy came forth and provided a proffer of information. The conspiracy alleged by Plaintiffs was carried out in secret, and there was no way that any Plaintiff could have discovered the nature and extent of the conspiracy, and the European Carriers’ role in the conspiracy, without information provided by the cooperating Defendant. For these reasons, the European Carrier’s Motion should be denied. II. BACKGROUND The first of the actions which became this MDL proceeding was filed in this Court on November 6, 2007. Wortman et al. v. Air New Zealand Et al., N.D. Cal. case no. 07-cv-05634 CRB (DMR) (Dkt. No. 1). That complaint date did not name the European Carriers as Defendants. Additional Complaints were filed in this Court and other United States District Courts, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the cases consolidated before this Court. On March 28, 2008, this Court appointed interim co-lead counsel for the class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(g). (Dkt. No. 130). A short time later, initial discussions commenced between a participant in the conspiracy and interim co-lead counsel. Over the next sixteen months, information was provided by this participant which confirmed many of the allegations made in the Original Complaint and provided information about the conspiracy, including information about additional participants in the conspiracy, that had previously been unknown to Plaintiffs. The information provided by the cooperating Defendant was the basis of many of the allegations of the Consolidated Amended Complaint filed on August 6, 2009 (Dkt. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EUROPEAN CARRIERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 07-cv-05634-CRB; MDL No. 1913 1 Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 533 Filed 08/29/11 Page 5 of 17 v LA W O FFIC ES COTCHETT, PITRE, & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 No. 200) (“CAC”). The CAC included numerous additional allegations about the conspiracy and included the European Carriers as Defendants. The European Carriers were included as Defendants based upon information provided to interim co-lead counsel by the cooperating Defendant which had, until its disclosure by the cooperating Defendant, been unknown to interim co-lead counsel. Plaintiffs could not otherwise gain knowledge of this information through the exercise of due diligence. In response to the CAC, the Defendants filed thirteen motions to dismiss. Defendants Philippine Airlines, Inc. and Vietnam Airlines Corp. filed a motion to dismiss based upon relation back grounds (Dkt. No. 287). The European Carriers did not file such a motion, although they filed separate motions to dismiss and joined in the joint motion to dismiss. III. ARGUMENT A. The Federal Discovery Rule is Applicable to Plaintiffs’ Claims The Ninth Circuit has made it clear that the discovery rule applies to statutes of limitations in federal litigation. As stated in Mangum v. Action Collection Serv., Inc., 575 F.3d 935, 940 (9th Cir. 2009): We have made it clear that, in general, the discovery rule applies to statutes of limitations in federal litigation, that is, “[f]ederal law determines when the limitations period begins to run, and the general federal rule is that ‘a limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.’” Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab., 135 F.3d 1260, 1266 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Trotter v. Int'l Long-shoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 704 F.2d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 1983)). The Seventh Circuit has spoken to the application of the federal discovery rule to antitrust claims: [I]n the absence of a contrary directive from Congress this rule is qualified by the discovery rule, which “postpones the beginning of the limitations period from the date when the plaintiff is wronged to the date when he discovers he has been injured.” See Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446, 450 (7th Cir. 1990). “This principle is based on the general rule that accrual occurs when the plaintiff discovers that ‘he has been injured and who caused the injury.’” Barry Aviation, Inc. v. Land O'Lakes Mun. Airport Comm'n, 377 F.3d 682, 688 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Duke, 229 F.3d 627, 630 (7th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original). MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EUROPEAN CARRIERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 07-cv-05634-CRB; MDL No. 1913 2 Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 533 Filed 08/29/11 Page 6 of 17 v LA W O FFIC ES COTCHETT, PITRE, & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In re Copper Antitrust Litig., 436 F.3d 782, 789 (7th Cir. 2006). See also In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig., 743 F.Supp.2d 827, 854 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (“Sulfuric Acid”); In re Aftermarket Filters Antitrust Litig., No. 08 C 4883 2009 WL 3754041, *4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2009) (“Aftermarket Filters”); In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Price Fixing Litig., No. 1:05-CV-00979- SEB-VS, 2006 WL 2849711, *2 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2006). In this case, Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to invoke the discovery rule. Schwartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 764 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiffs adequately allege that they did not, and could not have had, actual or constructive knowledge of the conspiracy until the DOJ announced the charges against KAL, and that further, secret and confidential information that could only be obtained from a member of the conspiracy was not made available until just before the filing of the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“FAC”). FAC ¶¶ 282-287. Constructive knowledge exists when a plaintiff “should have been alerted to facts that, following duly diligent inquiry, could have advised it of its claim.” Conmar Corp. v. Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc., 858 F.2d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied sub nom. VSL, Inc. v. Conmar Corp., 488 U.S. 1010 (1989) (“Conmar”). “However, knowledge of facts relevant to their claim will not amount to constructive knowledge if those facts were not of a type to prompt investigation.” In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litig., 782 F. Supp. 487, 493 (C.D. Cal. 1991) (“Petroleum Products”) (citing Conmar, 858 F.2d at 504-05). In fact, “notice in the context of fraudulent concealment is close to actual notice, not ‘the kind of notice – based on hints, suspicions, hunches or rumors – that requires a plaintiff to make such inquiries in the exercise of due diligence but not to file suit.’” In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., No. 99-197 (TFH), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7397, at *32-33 (D.D.C. May 9, 2000) (quoting Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1, 35 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). In addition, “public access to information does not incontrovertibly establish constructive knowledge of one’s claims.” Petroleum Products, 782 F. Supp. at 493 (citing Conmar, 858 F.2d at 504). “Even where a plaintiff actually knows of public speculation, constructive knowledge cannot be established, / / / MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EUROPEAN CARRIERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 07-cv-05634-CRB; MDL No. 1913 3 Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 533 Filed 08/29/11 Page 7 of 17 v LA W O FFIC ES COTCHETT, PITRE, & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 absent ‘awareness of ‘some evidence tending to support it.’” Id. (quoting E.W. French & Sons, Inc. v. General Portland, Inc., 885 F.2d 1392, 1400 (9th Cir. 1989) (“French”)). In Conmar, the Ninth Circuit held that general issues of material fact existed as to whether, as a matter of law, the publication of articles in major newspapers describing an investigation into the same violations alleged in the complaint, as well as an indictment, were sufficient to put the plaintiff on notice. 858 F.2d at 504-05. This was so even though the plaintiff relied on the indictments in its complaint. Id. at 502. Similarly, in Petroleum Products, the district court held that media coverage of federal grand jury investigations into antitrust violations similar to those alleged by the plaintiff was not, as a matter of law, sufficient to prompt plaintiffs to investigate their claims. 782 F. Supp. at 496-97. See also French, 885 F.2d at 1400 (existence of earlier law suit charging the named defendants with price fixing is “not tantamount to actual or constructive knowledge of the price-fixing claims”); In re Rubber Chems. Antitrust Litig., 504 F. Supp. 2d 777, 788 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (“Rubber Chems.”) (allegations that the defendants engaged in a self-concealing conspiracy that involved secret meetings to set prices, agreements not to disclose the collusion, destruction of documents, and pretextual justifications for inflated prices would not, if true, “give rise to any information that would ‘excite the inquiry of a reasonable person’ and thereby require Plaintiffs to engage in affirmative steps to attempt to discover the conspiracy.”) For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to invoke the discovery rule. B. Because Plaintiffs May Properly Invoke the Discovery Rule, they Need not “Relate Back” In Order to Toll the Statute of Limitations Although Defendants filed many reams of paper in support of the thirteen motions to dismiss the CAC, the European Carriers did not at that time raise the arguments they now seek to raise. When the European Carriers filed their previous motions, all of the facts and claims pertinent to the Court’s determination of the instant motion were already contained within Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Accordingly, Defendants should be deemed to have waived the argument. But even if Plaintiffs did not name the European Carriers in the first filed complaint, the record MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EUROPEAN CARRIERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 07-cv-05634-CRB; MDL No. 1913 4 Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 533 Filed 08/29/11 Page 8 of 17 v LA W O FFIC ES COTCHETT, PITRE, & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 bears no indication that allowing Plaintiffs to proceed with their claims against the European Carriers would contravene the purpose of Rule 15(c). Where a party seeks to add a new defendant under Rule 15(c) due to a mistake, the Ninth Circuit has stated that a court’s main objective is “‘avoiding prejudice to the party to be added.’” Percy v. San Francisco General Hospital, 841 F.2d 975, 978 (9th Cir. Cal. 1988). In such circumstances, the “district court is called upon to exercise its discretion in deciding whether the circumstances of a given case are such that it would be unfair to permit the plaintiff to add a new defendant.” Id. Here adding the European Carriers as Defendants to this matter would not result in prejudice to the European Carriers, who cannot persuasively argue that they were not on notice of this litigation so as to preserve any defenses. In moving for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims against them, the European Carriers rely chiefly on Federal Rule 15(c). The European Carriers insist that Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed because Plaintiffs have not offered a reason as to why the European Carriers were not named in the first filed complaint. For support as to this argument, Defendants rely on Kilkenny v. Arco Marine, Inc., 800 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1986) for the unremarkable proposition that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) is intended only protect a plaintiff who mistakenly names a party and then discovers the identity of the proper party after the statute of limitations has run. Defendants miss the point. Of course, Rule 15(c) “is the only vehicle through which a plaintiff may amend his complaint, after a statute of limitation period has run, to accurately name a defendant who was not correctly named in the pleading before the limitation period had run.” Korn v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 724 F.2d 1397, 1399 (9th Cir. 1984) (emphasis added). Here, however, the reason why the European Carriers were not named as Defendants in the first filed complaint was not the result of a “mistake” as to the European Carriers’ names in the plain and ordinary meaning of the word, or a result of mistaking their identities for that of another Defendant who was mistakenly and actually named. Instead, Plaintiffs did not name the European Carriers as Defendants in the first filed complaint because it was not until a cooperating member of the conspiracy identified the European Carriers as participants that MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EUROPEAN CARRIERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 07-cv-05634-CRB; MDL No. 1913 5 Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 533 Filed 08/29/11 Page 9 of 17 v LA W O FFIC ES COTCHETT, PITRE, & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs were able to plead, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a claim against the European Carriers. Accordingly, the issue of whether Plaintiffs’ claims against the European Carriers relate back to the Original Complaint under Rule 15(c) is irrelevant. Rather, as discussed above, the pertinent determination is whether Plaintiffs’ claims against the European Carriers should be tolled under the Discovery Rule. For these reasons, the European Carriers’ instant motion should be denied. C. Even If Plaintiffs Were Required to Satisfy the Rule 15(c) Requirements, Plaintiffs Do So Because They Only Received Notice of the European Carrier’s Potential Identity as Defendants From a Cooperating Defendant Even if the Court determined that Plaintiffs are required to satisfy the Rule 15(c) requirements, Plaintiffs’ allegations are more than sufficient to do so. As articulated in Brink v. First Credit Resources, “[t]he cases in which a plaintiff seeks to add a defendant after the statute of limitations has run follow three patterns.” 57 F. Supp. 2d 858, 856-57 (D. Ariz. 1999). In one scenario, a plaintiff seeks to add defendants “when the information about the additional defendant’s identity is within the defendants’ control but the defendants are not forthcoming.” Id. at 856. This scenario is distinguished from the second scenario where a plaintiff knows a defendant’s identity but is uncertain as to whether that defendant may be liable. Id. (citing Wells v. HBO & Co., 813 F. Supp. 1561, 1567 (N.D. Ga. 1992)). And in a third scenario, a plaintiff is unaware of a potential defendant’s identity, learns of the pertinent identity within the statute of limitations, and later seeks to amend his complaint after the statute of limitations has expired. Brink, 57 F. Supp. 2d at 856 (citing Kilkenny, 800 F.2d at 857). Unlike the first scenario, which is similar to the case at hand, a plaintiff’s failure to add a potential defendant in the latter two scenarios “cannot be characterized as a ‘mistake concerning identity’ because the plaintiff was aware of the new party’s identity before the statute of limitations had run.’” Id. at 856. This results from the proposition, established by the Ninth Circuit, that “Rule 15(c) was never intended to assist a plaintiff who ignores or fails to respond in a reasonable fashion to notice of a potential party.” Kilkenny, 800 F.2d at 857. / / / MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EUROPEAN CARRIERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 07-cv-05634-CRB; MDL No. 1913 6 Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 533 Filed 08/29/11 Page 10 of 17 v LA W O FFIC ES COTCHETT, PITRE, & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In this case, Plaintiffs were not aware of the European Carriers’ identity as a potential party prior to the filing of the first filed complaint, and otherwise did not have notice that the European Carriers were a potential party prior to receiving knowledge through the disclosures of the cooperating Defendant, as noted above. This is sufficient to constitute a mistake concerning the identity of the European Carriers. Accordingly, in such circumstances where Plaintiffs were not aware of the European Carriers’ identity as a potential defendant in this litigation, the allegations presented in the FAC are sufficient to relate back to the Original Complaint. Defendants’ instant Motion should be denied for this additional reason. D. Plaintiffs Have Adequately Pled Fraudulent Concealment Nonetheless, the European Carriers’ briefly argue that Plaintiffs’ FAC fails to allege fraudulent concealment with sufficient particularity, citing Conmar, 858 F.2d at 505, and join in the separate motion to dismiss fraudulent concealment allegations. The European Carriers are mistaken for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss Fraudulent Concealment allegations, and Plaintiffs respectfully refer the Court to the separately field opposition to that motion. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the European Carriers’ motion should be dismissed. Dated: August 29, 2011 Respectfully submitted, COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP By: /s/ Steven N. Williams Joseph W. Cotchett (36324) Niall P. McCarthy (160175) Paul N. “Pete” McCloskey (024541) Steven N. Williams (175489) Nanci E. Nishimura (152621) Niki B. Okcu (229345) Eric J. Buescher (271323) COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: 650-697-6000 Facsimile: 650-697-0577 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EUROPEAN CARRIERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 07-cv-05634-CRB; MDL No. 1913 7 Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 533 Filed 08/29/11 Page 11 of 17 v LA W O FFIC ES COTCHETT, PITRE, & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Michael D. Hausfeld HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: 202-540-7200 Facsimile: 202-540-7201 Michael P. Lehmann (77152) Christopher L. Lebsock (184546) Jon T. King (205073) HAUSFELD LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-633-1908 Facsimile: 415-358-4980 Interim Class Counsel for the Putative Class Daniel C. Girard Elizabeth C. Pritzker GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Tel: 415-981-4800 Fax: 415-981-4846 dcg@girardgibbs.com ecp@girardgibbs.com Walter J. Lack Elizabeth L. Crooke Richard P. Kinnan ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB & LACK 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: 310-552-3800 Fax: 310-552-9434 wlack@elllaw.com bcrooke@elllaw.com rkinnan@elllaw.com MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EUROPEAN CARRIERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 07-cv-05634-CRB; MDL No. 1913 8 Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 533 Filed 08/29/11 Page 12 of 17 v LA W O FFIC ES COTCHETT, PITRE, & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Guido Saveri Richard Alexander Saveri Cadio R. Zirpoli SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 706 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: 415-217-6810 Fax: 415-217-6813 guido@saveri.com rick@saveri.com cadio@saveri.com Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. Mark Reinhardt REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD East 1250 First National Bank Building 322 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Tel: 651-287-2100 Fax: 651-287-2103 g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com m.reinhardt@rwblawfirm.com Thomas Girardi Graham B.LippSmith GIRARDI & KEESE 1126 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: (213) 977-0211 Fax: (213) 481-1554 tgirardi@girardikeese.com glippsmith@girardikeese.com Bruce L. Simon Will Newsom PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW & PENNY 44 Montgomery St, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415-433-9000 Fax: 415-433-9008 bsimon@pswplaw.com wnewsom@pswplaw.com MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EUROPEAN CARRIERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 07-cv-05634-CRB; MDL No. 1913 9 Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 533 Filed 08/29/11 Page 13 of 17 v LA W O FFIC ES COTCHETT, PITRE, & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Jack Wing Lee Brad Yamauchi Sean Tamuro-Sato Derek Howard MINAMI TAMAKI LLP 360 Post Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Tel: 415-788-9000 Fax: 415-398-3887 jlee@minamitamaki.com byamauchi@minamitamaki.com seant@minamitamaki.com dhoward@minamitamaki.com Allan Steyer D. Scott Macrae Jayne A. Peeters Dana Andreoli STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP One California Street, 3d Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: 415-421-3400 Fax: 415-421-2234 asteyer@steyerlaw.com smacrae@steyerlaw.com jpeeters@steyerlaw.com dandreoli@steyerlaw.com Brian S. Kabateck Richard Kellner KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: 213-217-5000 Fax: 213-217-5010 bsk@kbklawyers.com rlk@kbklawyers.com MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EUROPEAN CARRIERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 07-cv-05634-CRB; MDL No. 1913 10 Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 533 Filed 08/29/11 Page 14 of 17 v LA W O FFIC ES COTCHETT, PITRE, & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rober Eisler GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 1201 N. Market Street Suite 2100 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: 302-622-7030 Fax: 302-622-7100 reisler@gelaw.com Steven A. Kanner Billy London FREED, KANNER, LONDON & MILLEN, LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Tel: 224-632-4500 Fax: 224-632-4519 skanner@fklmlaw.com blondon@fklmlaw.com Craig C. Corbitt ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415-693-0700 Fax: 415-693-0770 ccorbitt@zelle.com Jeff S. Westerman MILBERG LLP One California Plaza 300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: 213-617-1200 Fax: 213-617-1975 jwesterman@milberg.com Peter G.A. Safirstein MILBERG LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY 10119-0165 Tel: 212-594-5300 Fax: 212-868-1229 psafirstein@milberg.com MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EUROPEAN CARRIERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 07-cv-05634-CRB; MDL No. 1913 11 Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 533 Filed 08/29/11 Page 15 of 17 v LA W O FFIC ES COTCHETT, PITRE, & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Robert Kaplan Laurence D. King KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 350 Sansome Street. Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415-772-4700 Fax: 415-772-4707 rkaplan@kaplanfox.com lking@kaplanfox.com W. Joseph Bruckner LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-339-6900 Fax: 612-339-0981 wjbruckner@locklaw.com Michael Buchman J. Douglas Richards POMERANTZ HAUDEK BLOCK GROSSMAN & GROSS 100 Park Avenue New York, NY 10019 Tel: 212-661-1100 Fax: 212-661-8665 mbuchman@pomlaw.com drichards@pomlaw.com Eugene A. Spector SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS PC 1818 Market Street, 25th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: 215-496-0300 Fax: 215-496-6611 espector@srkw-law.com MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EUROPEAN CARRIERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 07-cv-05634-CRB; MDL No. 1913 12 Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 533 Filed 08/29/11 Page 16 of 17 v LA W O FFIC ES COTCHETT, PITRE, & MCCARTHY, LLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Jennie Lee Anderson ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415-986-1400 Fax: 415-986-1474 jennie@andrusanderson.com Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EUROPEAN CARRIERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. 07-cv-05634-CRB; MDL No. 1913 13 Case 3:07-cv-05634-CRB Document 533 Filed 08/29/11 Page 17 of 17