Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—N.D. Cal.: Application of Florida law did not violate due process, (Jun 30, 2014)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

The application of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) in an antitrust action, alleging a global price-fixing conspiracy in the market for thin-film transistor liquid-crystal display (TFT-LCD) panels, was appropriate, the federal district court in San Francisco ruled. In reaching its decision to deny the TFT-LCD panel manufactures’ motion for summary judgment, the court determined that application of Florida law would not violate due process (In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, June 26, 2014, Illston, S).

Due process. In support of their motion to dismiss, TFT-LCD panel manufacturers Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. and HannStar Display Corporation argued that the application of Florida law to the plaintiffs’ claims would offend due process, as neither Chunghwa nor HannStar had any contacts with Florida. The court disagreed, finding that all four plaintiffs—TracFone Wireless, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., Interbond Corp. of America, and Tech Data Corp.—were headquartered in Florida and all negotiations, purchasing decisions, orders, and payments for the LCD products occurred in Florida. Thus, the state had sufficient contacts and interests in the parties and the transactions giving rise to the litigation.

Chunghwa and HannStar also argued that: (1) application of Florida law would be unfair because the companies never sold their products or engaged in any alleged conspiratorial conduct in Florida; (2) plaintiffs failed to establish that the LCD products they purchased contained LCD panels manufactured by Chunghwa and HannStar; and (3) FDUTPA does not support the plaintiffs’ claims because the act only applies to conduct that occurred in Florida. The court was not swayed by the companies’ arguments and found that “Florida has an important interest in protecting its residents from the harmful effects of anticompetitive conspiracies”; whether the LCD products purchased by the plaintiffs were manufactured by Chunghwa and HannStar was irrelevant, as sufficient requisite contacts with Florida were established to satisfy due process requirements; and the FDUTPA does not restrict application to acts occurring entirely in the state of Florida.

Consequently, Chunghwa’s and HannStar’s motion for summary judgment was denied.

The case number is M 07-1827 SI.

Attorneys: David Bedford Esau (Carlton Fields Jorden Burt) for Tracfone Wireless, Inc. Stuart H. Singer (Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP) for Office Depot, Inc. and Interbond Corp. of America. Melissa Willett (Boies, Schiller & Flexner) and Mitchell E. Widom (Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP) for Tech Data Corp. Carl Lawrence Blumenstein (Nossaman LLP) for AU Optronics Corp.

Companies: Tracfone Wireless, Inc.; Office Depot, Inc.; Interbond Corp. of America; Tech Data Corp.; AU Optronics Corp.

Cases: StateUnfairTradePractices CaliforniaNews