Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: Federal claims against Mitsubishi in CRT price fixing suit avoid dismissal, (Mar 17, 2014)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

Federal antitrust claims by Sharp Electronics Corporation and other direct action plaintiffs against cathode ray tube (CRT) manufacturers for fixing CRT prices were not barred by laches or the statute of limitations, the federal district court in San Francisco has decided. However, the plaintiffs’ claims under state antitrust laws, with the exception of claims under New York’s Donnelly Act, were barred by the statute of limitations (In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, March 13, 2014, Conti, S.).

Sharp, and several other direct action plaintiffs (DAPs), elected to opt out of multidistrict class action litigation against cathode ray tube (CRT) manufacturers. The DAPs sought to amend their initial complaints to add Mitsubishi as a defendant. Mitsubishi had never been the subject of any government investigation into CRT price fixing. Contending that the complaints were barred by laches and the relevant statute of limitations, Mitsubishi moved to dismiss the DAPs’ complaints.

The DAPs’ complaints were not barred by the doctrine of laches, according to the court. Another defendant in the case provided extensive evidence regarding Mitsubishi’s participation in the conspiracy which had been kept secret until November 2013.  Due to the defendants’ agreement to keep secret their participation in the conspiracy, the plaintiffs could not have discovered the relevant information earlier.

The court also found that the statute of limitations for the DAPs’ federal antitrust claims and claims under the Donnelly Act were tolled due to government action. The government’s federal criminal investigation of CRT manufacturers began in 2009 and some indictments were still pending. Rejecting Mitsubishi’s argument that the open indictments did not apply to the DAPs’ claims, the court noted that the open criminal cases should not be ignored for tolling purposes. Additionally, the Donnelly Act included a provision similar to the tolling doctrine for federal claims. However, the court concluded that the DAPs’ state antitrust law claims were barred by the statute of limitations since the equitable tolling doctrine regarding government actions only applied to federal antitrust claims.

The case is No. C-07-5944-SC.

Attorneys:  Philip J. Iovieno (Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP) for Electrograph Systems, Inc. and Interbond Corp. of America.  Calvin Lee Litsey (Faegre Baker Daniels LLP) for Technicolor S.A. Terrence Joseph Truax (Jenner & Block LLC) for Mitsubishi Electric Corp.

Companies: Sharp Electronics Corp.; Mitsubishi Electric Corp.

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews