Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: Tolling provisions in California, New York law save CRT price fixing claims, (Mar 17, 2014)

By Jeffrey May, J.D.

State law claims asserted by Sharp Electronics Corporation in price fixing litigation against cathode ray tube (CRT) manufacturers were time-barred with the exception of a New York Donnelly Act claim and a California Cartwright Act claim brought by Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc. (SEMA) related to direct purchases, the federal district court in San Francisco has ruled (In re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, March 13, 2014, Conti, S.).

Sharp had opted out of an earlier-filed direct purchaser plaintiff (DPP) class action against the CRT makers. It filed an individual complaint in 2013. Although Sharp pleaded fraudulent concealment until late 2007, its claims were time-barred unless it could invoke a tolling doctrine or some equivalent.

The commencement of a class action suspends the statute of limitation as to all putative members of the class up to and until class certification is denied or the plaintiff opts out of the class. However, the defendants successfully argued that the causes of action asserted in the individual complaints had to be identical to those from the class action complaints for tolling to apply and none of the direct purchaser complaints asserted a state law cause of action.

California law, however, provides a special protection for California residents to extend the tolling periods for California state law claims not asserted in the class action. Because California only allows its resident class members to reap tolling benefits under this equitable tolling doctrine, the doctrine applied only to claims asserted on behalf of SEMA, a California-based company. The court found that equitable tolling should apply, because (1) the defendants had timely notice of the DPP action; (2) the defendants were not prejudiced in gathering evidence to defend against SEMA's claim, since the DPP cases (though now nearing settlement) had been underway for years; and (3) it did not appear that Sharp acted in bad faith in filing the opt-out case.

New York. Sharp successfully argued that the federal government's actions on the CRT conspiracy tolled the statute of limitations for its Donnelly Act claims based on a provision in New York law, the court concluded. The Donnelly Act's tolling provision suspends Donnelly Act limitations periods pending federal antitrust proceedings. Where as here the open indictments referenced by Sharp remained pending, the court rejected the defendants’ contention that tolling should not apply because not much was happening in the case.

Florida. Another plaintiff, Tech Data Corporation, failed to convince the court that it should toll the statute of limitations for its Florida Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act (FDUTPA) claim based on an action brought by the State of Florida on behalf of consumers or governmental entities for damages caused by FDUTPA violations with respect to the alleged CRT conspiracy. While commencement of a class action suspends the statute of limitations, the state's suit would not constitute a class action in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Mississippi v. AU Optronics, the court explained. In any event, Tech Data's claim would be untimely even if the Florida complaint tolled its cause of action, the court noted.

The case is No. C 07-5944 SC (MDL No. 1917).

Attorneys: Stephen E. Taylor (Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP) for Sharp Electronics Corp. and Sharp Electronics Mfg. Co. of America, Inc. Melissa Willett (Boies, Schiller & Flexner) and Mitchell E. Widom (Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP) for Tech Data Corp. and Tech Data Product Management, Inc. Eliot A. Adelson (Kirkland & Ellis LLP) for Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Hitachi America Ltd., Hitachi Asia Ltd. and Hitachi Electronic Devices, Inc.

Companies: Tech Data Corp.; Sharp Electronics Corp.; Sharp Electronics Mfg. Co. of America, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews