Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—NDCal: Failure to Submit to Jurisdiction Precluded Motion to Dismiss , (May 16, 2013)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

An employee of a color display tube manufacturer could not bring a motion to dismiss Sherman Act criminal charges because he had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and had not been arraigned, according to the federal district court in San Francisco (U.S. v. Chung Cheng Yeh, May 15, 2013, Alsup, W.). The employee was charged with participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in restraint of trade in the market for color display tubes from at least as early as May 1999 until at least March 2005 in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. During the time period alleged, the employee was not in the United States and never appeared before the court to be arraigned.

In the motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations, the employee argued that the complaint was filed over five years after the employee withdrew from the conspiracy. The government opposes the motion on the grounds that the employee failed to enter the United States and submit to the court’s jurisdiction. Specifically, the government argued that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine barred the employee from having his motion to dismiss considered at this time, because he never submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and was not arraigned.

The fugitive disentitlement doctrine holds that those who have fled federal jurisdiction should not be entitled to avail themselves of the benefits of the court system. The doctrine is equitable, not jurisdictional. Reaching a decision on the merits of the motion would essentially give the employee an advisory opinion on whether a statute of limitations defense will be successful. The employee stated that he believed he was under no legal obligation to travel to the United States to be arraigned on the pending charge. Therefore, if the motion was denied on the merits, the employee would remain a fugitive from justice, making it impossible to bring his case to final resolution. Until the employee submits his case for complete adjudication, he cannot utilize the resources of the court to determine isolated issues, or to obtain further discovery, the court concluded.

The case is No. CR 10-00231 WHA.

Attorneys: Lidia Maher (U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division) for the United States of America. Douglas Robert Schwartz (Schwartz & Cera LLP) for Chung Cheng Yeh.

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews