Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

March 30, 2010, Decided; March 30, 2010, Filed

Master File No. CV-07-5944 SC; MDL No. 1917

Opinion

 [*1015]  ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT, RECOMMENDATIONS AND TENTATIVE RULINGS RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 5, 2010, the Special Master in the above matter rendered his Report, Recommendations, and Tentative Rulings Regarding Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. Docket No. 597 ("Report"). Defendants have filed objections, Docket Nos. 605, 607, 608, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 622, and Plaintiffs have responded, Docket Nos. 626, 627, 628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 641. The Court held a hearing on Defendants' objections on March 18, 2010. Having considered the parties' filings  [**36] and contentions, the Court hereby APPROVES and ADOPTS the Special Master's rulings and recommendations.

II. BACKGROUND

This case concerns alleged conspiracies in the Cathode Ray Tube ("CRT") industry. On June 16, 2008, the Court appointed the Honorable Charles A. Legge, United States District Court Judge (Retired), as a Special Master to assist the Court in this litigation. Docket No. 302 ("Order Appointing Special Master"). On March 16, 2009, Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. Docket No. 436 ("Direct Compl."). Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on the same day. Docket No. 437 ("Indirect Compl."). The  [*1016]  Special Master reviewed Defendants' joint and individual motions to dismiss, conducted a hearing on the motions to dismiss on October 5, 2009, and issued his Report on February 5, 2010.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 requires that in acting on a Special Master's Report, "the court must give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard." Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(1). The parties stipulated that the Court would "review findings of fact made or recommended by the Special Master for clear error" and "review  [**37] de novo any conclusions of law." Order Appointing Special Master ¶ 18 (emphasis in original).

IV. DISCUSSION

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

738 F. Supp. 2d 1011 *; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98739 **; 2011-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P77,592

IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION;This document relates to: ALL ACTIONS

Subsequent History: Later proceeding at In re Cathode Ray Tube Crt Antitrust Litig., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193746 (N.D. Cal., July 14, 2016)

Prior History: Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litig. Crago. Inc. v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145617 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 5, 2010)

CORE TERMS

Indirect, conspiracy, antitrust, recommends, entities, manufacturers, monitors, Glass, concealment, televisions, fraudulent, tubes, enrichment, unjust, bilateral, customers, Consumer, subsidiaries, affiliated, discovery, attended, finances, display, color

Civil Procedure, Judicial Officers, Masters, General Overview, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Antitrust & Trade Law, International Aspects, Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, Sherman Act, Scope, Private Actions, Standing, Requirements, Clayton Act, Regulated Practices, Prioritizing Resources & Organization for Intellectual Property Act