`
`No. _________
`================================================================================================================
`
`In The
`Supreme Court of the United States
`--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
`
`TYLER AYRES, et al.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS,
`TOSHIBA CORPORATION, SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD.,
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS, N.V., THOMSON SA,
`HITACHI LTD., PANASONIC CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`Respondents.
`
`--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
`
`On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
`To The United States Court Of Appeals
`For The Ninth Circuit
`
`--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
`
`TRACY R. KIRKHAM
`JOHN D. BOGDANOV
`COOPER & KIRKHAM, P.C.
`357 Tehama Street,
` Second Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94103
`Telephone: (415) 788-3030
`trk@coopkirk.com
`jdb@coopkirk.com
`
`JOHN G. CRABTREE
` Counsel of Record
` CHARLES M. AUSLANDER
` BRIAN C. TACKENBERG
` CRABTREE & AUSLANDER
` 240 Crandon Blvd.
` Suite 101
` Key Biscayne, FL 33149
` Telephone: (305) 361-3770
`jcrabtree@crabtreelaw.com
`
`[Additional Counsel Listed On Inside Cover]
`
`================================================================================================================
`COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964
`WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRIAN M. TORRES
`BRIAN M. TORRES, P.A.
`One S.E. Third Avenue,
` Suite 3000
`Miami, FL 33131
`Telephone: (305) 901-5858
`btorres@briantorres.legal
`
`
`ROBERT J. BONSIGNORE
`BONSIGNORE, LLC
`3771 Meadowcrest Drive
`Las Vegas, NV 89121
`Telephone: (781) 856-7650
`rbonsignore@classactions.us
`
`FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA
`PATRICK B. CLAYTON
`LAW OFFICES OF
` FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA
`3708 Clay Street
`San Francisco, CA 94118
`Telephone: (415) 751-4193
`fos@scarpullalaw.com
`pbc@scarpullalaw.com
`THERESA D. MOORE
`LAW OFFICES OF
` THERESA D. MOORE
`One Sansome Street,
` 35th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 613-1414
`tmoore@aliotolaw.com
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`
`On remand from an appeal successfully challenging
`
`a proposed nationwide settlement, class counsel and his
`clients stopped representing the class members in the
`Petitioners’ states. The Petitioners, still members of the
`certified national class, moved to intervene-of-right as
`representatives for the members in their states.
`
`Although agreeing that those class members needed
`representation, the district court found it lacked
`subject matter jurisdiction to allow the intervention
`because the case was within a multi-district litigation
`(MDL) proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. The Petitioners
`appealed. To ensure their appeal was not rendered
`moot, they later appealed a final judgment approving
`a new settlement that excised the claims of the class
`members in their states against the Respondents.
`
`In a single decision, the Ninth Circuit: (i) affirmed
`the final judgment on the basis that the Petitioners
`lacked standing to challenge it; and (ii) dismissed the
`intervention appeal as moot because the court was
`affirming the final judgment.
`
`The decision has deepened a circuit split that the
`Fourth and Fifth Circuits have expressly acknowledged.
`
`The questions presented are:
`
`1. Does a final judgment moot a pending appeal
`from an order denying intervention-of-right?
`
`2. Does a district court possess subject matter
`jurisdiction to allow class members to intervene-of-right
`directly into a case coordinated in an MDL proceeding?
`
`
`
`ii
`
`RULE 14.1 STATEMENT
`
`
`In addition to the petitioner listed in the caption,
`
`the following individuals were the appellants below
`and are petitioners here: Kerry Murphy, Jay Erickson,
`John Heenan, Jeff Johnson, Chris Seufert, William J.
`Trentham, Nikki Crawley, Hope Hitchcock, D. Bruce
`Johnson, Mike Bratcher, Eleanor Lewis, Robert
`Stephenson, and Warren Cutlip.
`
`The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs referred to in
`
`the caption as respondents were plaintiff-appellees
`below, representing themselves and a certified class,
`and are: Brian Luscher, Jeffrey Figone, Carmen
`Gonzalez, Dana Ross, Steven Ganz, Lawyer’s Choice
`Suites, Inc., David Rooks, Sandra Reebok, Travis
`Burau, Southern Office Supply, Inc., Kerry Lee Hall,
`Lisa Reynolds, Barry Kushner, Misti Walker, Steven
`Fink, David Norby, Ryan Rizzo, Charles Jenkins,
`Gregory Painter, Conrad Party, Janet Ackerman, Mary
`Ann Stephenson, Patricia Andrews, Gary Hanson,
`Frank Warner, Albert Sidney Crigler, Margaret Slagle,
`John Larch, Louise Wood, Donna Ellingson-Mack, and
`Brigid Terry.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`RULE 14.1 STATEMENT—Continued
`
`
`In addition to the respondent entities listed in
`
`the caption, the following entities were defendant-
`appellees below and are respondents here: Samsung
`SDI America, Inc., Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V.,
`Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda., Shenzhen Samsung SDI
`Co., Ltd., Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Samsung
`SDI (Malaysia) San. Bhd., Philips North America
`LLC, Philips Taiwan Limited, Philips do Brasil, Ltda.,
`Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., Technologies
`Displays Americas LLC, Hitachi Displays, Ltd. (n/k/a
`Japan Display, Inc.), Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Hitachi
`America, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA) Inc.,
`Panasonic Corporation of North America, MT Picture
`Display Co., Ltd., Toshiba America, Inc., Toshiba
`America Information Systems, Inc., Toshiba America
`Consumer Products, LLC, Toshiba America Electronic
`Components, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`RELATED CASES
`
`
`In Re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Litigation, MDL
`No. 1917, Master File No. 4:07-cv-5944-JST, U.S.
`District Court for the Northern District of
`California. Judgment entered July 29, 2020.
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. John Finn, et al. v.
`Toshiba Corporation, et al., No. 16-16368, U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment
`entered February 13, 2019.
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Sean Hull, et al. v.
`Toshiba Corporation, et al., No. 16-16371, U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment
`entered February 13, 2019.
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Anthony Gianasca,
`et al. v. Toshiba Corporation, et al., No. 16-16373,
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
`Judgment entered February 13, 2019.
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Donnie Clifton, et
`al. v. Toshiba Corporation, et al., No. 16-16374, U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment
`entered February 13, 2019.
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Dan L. Williams &
`Co., et al. v. Toshiba Corporation, et al., No. 16-
`16378, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
`Judgment entered February 13, 2019.
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Rockhurst Univer-
`sity, et al. v. Toshiba Corporation, et al., No. 16-
`16379, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
`Judgment entered February 13, 2019.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`v
`
`RELATED CASES—Continued
`
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Anthony Gianasca,
`et al. v. Toshiba Corporation, et al., No. 16-16400,
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
`Judgment entered February 13, 2019.
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Toshiba Corpora-
`tion, et al. v. Tyler Ayres, et al., No. 20-15697, U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment
`entered September 22, 2021.
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Toshiba Corpora-
`tion, et al. v. Tyler Ayres, et al., No. 20-15697, U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment
`entered March 3, 2022.
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Toshiba Corpora-
`tion, et al. v. Eleanor Lewis, No. 20-15704, U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment
`entered September 22, 2021.
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Toshiba Corpora-
`tion, et al. v. Eleanor Lewis, No. 20-15704, U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment
`entered March 3, 2022.
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Toshiba Corpora-
`tion, et al. v. Anthony Gianasca, et al., No. 20-
`16081, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
`Judgment entered September 22, 2021.
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Toshiba Corpora-
`tion, et al. v. Anthony Gianasca, et al., No. 20-
`16081, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
`Judgment entered March 3, 2022.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`vi
`
`RELATED CASES—Continued
`
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Toshiba Corpora-
`tion, et al. v. Eleanor Lewis, No. 20-16685, U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment
`entered September 22, 2021.
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Toshiba Corpora-
`tion, et al. v. Eleanor Lewis, No. 20-16685, U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment
`entered December 23, 2021.
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Jeff Speaect, et al.
`v. Toshiba Corporation, et al., No. 20-16686, U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment
`entered September 22, 2021.
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Jeff Speaect, et al.
`v. Toshiba Corporation, et al., No. 20-16686, U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment
`entered December 23, 2021.
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Toshiba Corpora-
`tion, et al. v. Scott Caldwell, et al., No. 20-16691,
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
`Judgment entered September 22, 2021.
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Toshiba Corpora-
`tion, et al. v. Scott Caldwell, et al., No. 20-16691,
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
`Judgment entered December 23, 2021.
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Toshiba Corpora-
`tion, et al. v. Tyler Ayres, et al., No. 20-16699, U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment
`entered September 22, 2021.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`vii
`
`RELATED CASES—Continued
`
`
`Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Toshiba Corpora-
`tion, et al. v. Tyler Ayres, et al., No. 20-16699, U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment
`entered December 23, 2021.
`
`•
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................
`i
`RULE 14.1 STATEMENT ....................................
`ii
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ..................
`iv
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................... viii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. xii
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI .......
`1
`OPINIONS BELOW .............................................
`1
`JURISDICTION ...................................................
`1
`STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ...........
`2
`STATEMENT .......................................................
`2
` A. Proceedings through the First Appeal ......
`2
` B. Post-Remand Proceedings and Second
`6
`Appeal ........................................................
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ..... 19
`
`I. The courts of appeals are divided over
`whether a final judgment moots a pend-
`ing appeal from an order denying inter-
`vention ....................................................... 21
`A. The Ninth Circuit’s decision directly
`conflicts with the decisions of seven
`circuits ................................................. 21
`B. The Second Circuit holds that dis-
`missal of the underlying case moots a
`pending intervention appeal ............... 24
`
`
`
`ix
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`Page
`C. The “divergent precedents” of the
`Ninth Circuit and the District of
`Columbia Circuit are occasionally (as
`here) wrong, and always fodder for
`confusion .............................................. 25
` II. The question presented regarding a
`denied intervenor’s right to appellate
`review is important ................................... 31
`A. The intervention-mootness issues in
`this case implicate the most basic
`notions of due process ......................... 31
`B. Allowing parties—especially named
`class
`representatives
`and
`their
`counsel—to moot the appellate rights
`of would-be intervenors invites moral
`hazard .................................................. 33
`C. The intervention-mootness issues are
`recurring .............................................. 34
` III. This case also presents an important
`federal jurisdictional and procedural issue
`arising out of the MDL statute .................. 34
`CONCLUSION ..................................................... 40
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`Page
`
`APPENDIX
`United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
`Circuit, Memorandum, September 22, 2021 ... App. 1
`United States District Court for the Northern
`District of California, Order, August 27,
`2020 ................................................................ App. 11
`United States District Court for the Northern
`District of California, Final Judgment, July
`29, 2020 .......................................................... App. 25
`United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
`Circuit, Order, July 22, 2020 .......................... App. 32
`United States District Court for the Northern
`District of California, Order, July 13, 2020 .... App. 34
`United States District Court for the Northern
`District of California, Order, June 25, 2020 ..... App. 77
`United States District Court for the Northern
`District of California, Order, April 9, 2020 .... App. 89
`United States District Court for the Northern
`District of California, Order, March 11,
`2020 ................................................................ App. 98
`United States District Court for the Northern
`District of California, Order, February 4,
`2020 .............................................................. App. 130
`United States District Court for the Northern
`District of California, Order, October 17,
`2019 .............................................................. App. 139
`
`
`
`xi
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`Page
`
`United States District Court for the Northern
`District of California, Order, October 15,
`2019 .............................................................. App. 144
`United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
`Circuit, Order, February 13, 2019 ................ App. 149
`United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
`Circuit, Order Denying Petition for Rehear-
`ing, December 23, 2021 ................................ App. 164
`United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
`Circuit, Order Denying Petition for Rehear-
`ing, March 2, 2022 ........................................ App. 173
`Relevant Statutes and Rules .......................... App. 176
`
`
`
`
`xii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`335-7 LLC v. City of New York,
`524 F. Supp. 3d 316 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) ....................... 25
`Allied Concrete & Supply Co. v. Baker,
`904 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................ 27, 28
`Alt. Research & Dev. Found. v. Veneman,
`262 F.3d 406 (D.C. Cir. 2001) .................................. 26
`Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,
`546 U.S. 500 (2006) ................................................. 36
`Canatella v. California,
`404 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2005) ...................... 16, 27, 28
`CE Design, Ltd. v. Cy’s Crab House N., Inc.,
`731 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2013) .............................. 22, 24
`Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch,
`387 U.S. 456 (1967) ................................................. 31
`CVLR Performance Horses, Inc. v. Wynne,
`792 F.3d 469 (4th Cir. 2015) ............ 13, 19, 21, 22, 24
`DBSI/TRI IV Ltd. P’ship v. United States,
`465 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2006) ............................ 27, 29
`DeOtte v. State,
`20 F.4th 1055 (5th Cir. 2021) ........................... passim
`Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank, Jackson, Miss. v. Roper,
`445 U.S. 326 (1980) ................................................. 33
`Energy Transp. Grp., Inc. v. Mar. Admin.,
`956 F.2d 1206 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ................................ 25
`FDIC v. Jennings,
`816 F.2d 1488 (10th Cir. 1987) ................... 23, 24, 33
`
`
`
`xiii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page
`
`Glasstech, Inc. v. AB Kyro OY,
`769 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ................................ 36
`Hamilton v. County of Los Angeles,
`46 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 1995) ........................... 26, 28
`Hansberry v. Lee,
`311 U.S. 32 (1940) ............................................. 31, 32
`Hess v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp.,
`513 U.S. 30 (1994) ................................................... 30
`Hiersche v. United States,
`503 U.S. 923 (1992) ................................................. 30
`Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois,
`431 U.S. 720 (1977) ................................................... 3
`In re Brewer,
`863 F.3d 861 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ................ 25, 33, 36, 39
`In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig.,
`753 Fed. Appx. 438 (9th Cir. 2019) ......................... 20
`In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litig.,
`20-15697, 2021 WL 4306895
`(9th Cir. Sept. 22, 2021) ............................................ 1
`In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litig.,
`4:07-CV-5944-JST, 2020 WL 5224343
`(N.D. Cal. July 29, 2020) ........................................... 1
`
`In re Farmers Ins. Exch. Claims
`Representatives Overtime Pay Litig.,
`MDL No. 33-1439, 2008 WL 4763029
`(D. Or. Oct. 28, 2008) ......................................... 34, 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xiv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page
`
`In re Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys. (MERS)
`Litig.,
`No. MD-09-02119-PHX-JAT,
`2016 WL 3931820 (D. Ariz. July 21, 2016) ............. 38
`
`In re Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc.,
`Litig.,
`719 Fed. Appx. 550 (9th Cir. 2017) ......................... 38
`In re Plumbing Fixture Cases,
`298 F. Supp. 484 (J.P.M.L. 1968)............................. 36
`In re Synthroid Mktg. Litig.,
`264 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2001) .................................... 22
`Inyo County, Cal. v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians,
`538 U.S. 701 (2003) ................................................. 31
`
`Kunz v. N.Y. State Comm’n on Judicial
`Misconduct,
`155 Fed. Appx. 21 (2d Cir. 2005) ............................. 24
`
`Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad
`Hynes & Lerach,
`523 U.S. 26 (1998) ................................................... 37
`Marshak v. Original Drifters, Inc.,
`2020 WL 1151564 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2020) ............ 25
`Mausolf v. Babbitt,
`125 F.3d 661 (8th Cir. 1997) .............................. 22, 24
`Mitchell v. Forsyth,
`472 U.S. 511 (1985) ................................................. 35
`
`Nat’l Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. Princess Mgmt.
`Co., Ltd.,
`597 F.2d 819 (2d Cir. 1979) ..................................... 24
`
`
`
`xv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page
`
`Neidig v. Rendina,
`298 Fed. Appx. 115 (3d Cir. 2008) ...................... 22, 24
`Nixon v. Fitzgerald,
`457 U.S. 731 (1982) ................................................. 35
`Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts,
`472 U.S. 797 (1985) ................................................. 31
`Porter v. Nussle,
`534 U.S. 516 (2002) ................................................. 30
`Prete v. Bradbury,
`438 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2006) .................................... 13
`Purcell v. BankAtlantic Fin. Corp.,
`85 F.3d 1508 (11th Cir. 1996) .................................. 23
`Reynolds v. Butts,
`312 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2002) ............................. 32
`Sommers v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
`835 F.3d 509 (5th Cir. 2016) .................................... 22
`
`Stadnicki on Behalf of LendingClub Corp. v.
`Laplanche,
`804 Fed. Appx. 519 (9th Cir. 2020) ......................... 27
`Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles,
`568 U.S. 588 (2013) ................................................. 34
`Stromberg v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`14 F.4th 1059 (9th Cir. 2021) .................................... 3
`Taylor v. Sturgell,
`553 U.S. 880 (2008) ................................................. 31
`Thiel v. Southern Pac. Co.,
`328 U.S. 217 (1946) ................................................. 37
`
`
`
`xvi
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page
`
`United States v. Ford,
`650 F.2d 1141 (9th Cir. 1981) .......................... 14, 26
`United States v. Sprint Communications, Inc.,
`855 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2017) .................. 14, 15, 27, 29
`
`W. Coast Seafood Processors Ass’n v. Nat. Res.
`Def. Council, Inc.,
`643 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................... 26
`Waller v. Fin. Corp. of Am.,
`828 F.2d 579 (9th Cir. 1987) .............................. 16, 18
`Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,
`455 U.S. 385 (1982) ................................................. 36
`
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`U.S. Const. amend. V .................................................. 35
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ........................................................ 1
`28 U.S.C. § 1407(a) ...................................................... 35
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 ............................................................ 7
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ........................................ 10, 32, 35, 39
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1)(B)(iii) ...................................... 32
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 .................................... 7, 10, 32, 35, 39
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 ......................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xvii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`15A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller &
`Edward H. Cooper, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND
`PROCEDURE § 3902.1 (2d ed. 1991) .......................... 23
`NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 10:28 (5th ed.) .............. 39
`NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 10:29 (5th ed.) .............. 37
`NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 16:7 (4th ed. 2002)........ 34
`Practical Law Antitrust, State Illinois Brick
`Repealer Laws Chart, Westlaw, https://bit.ly/
`3foROqr ..................................................................... 3
`SHAPIRO ET AL., SUPREME COURT PRACTICE
`(10th ed. 2013) ................................................... 31, 36
`United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
`Litigation, Calendar Year Statistics, https://
`www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/JPML_
`Calendar_Year_Statistics-2021.pdf (last visited
`Feb. 17, 2022) .......................................................... 37
`United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
`Litigation, MDL Statistics Report—Distribu-
`tion of Pending MDL Dockets by District
`(Feb. 15, 2022), https://www.jpml.uscourts.
`gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_
`By_District-February-15-2022.pdf ......................... 37
`United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
`Litigation, MDL Statistics Report—Distribu-
`tion of Pending MDL Dockets by Actions
`Pending (Feb. 15, 2022), https://www.jpml.
`uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_
`Dockets_By_Actions_Pending-February-15-
`2022.pdf ................................................................... 38
`
`
`
`1
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`The Petitioners pray that the Supreme Court
`
`grant a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of
`the court below.
`
`--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`The opinion of the court of appeals (i) dismissing
`
`the Petitioners’ denial-of-intervention appeal, and (ii)
`finding they had no standing to appeal the district
`court’s later-entered final judgment (App. 1-10) is re-
`ported at In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litig., 20-
`15697, 2021 WL 4306895 (9th Cir. Sept. 22, 2021). The
`final order of the district court denying the Petitioners’
`motion to intervene as sub-class representatives (App.
`130a-138a) is unreported. The district court’s final
`judgment (App. 25-30) is reported at In re Cathode Ray
`Tube Antitrust Litig., 4:07-CV-5944-JST, 2020 WL
`5224343 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2020).
`
`--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
`
`JURISDICTION
`The judgment of the court of appeals was entered
`
`on September 22, 2021. (App. 1-10). A timely petition
`for rehearing and rehearing en banc was denied on
`December 23, 2021 as to appeal numbers 20-16685, 20-
`16686, 20-16691, and 20-16699 (App. 164-172) and on
`March 2, 2022 as to appeal numbers 20-15697, 20-
`15704, and 20-16081. (App. 173-175). The jurisdiction
`of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).
`
`--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
`
`
`
`2
`
`STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`Pertinent statutory provisions are reproduced in
`
`the appendix to this petition. (App. 176-191).
`
`--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
`
`STATEMENT
`A. Proceedings through the First Appeal
`
`1. a. From the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, some
`of the most dominant players in the technology indus-
`try conspired to fix the prices of cathode ray tubes
`(CRTs)—making televisions, computer monitors and
`similar products substantially more expensive than
`they would otherwise be. Once the conspiracy came to
`light, plaintiffs from around the country filed direct
`and indirect purchaser suits in federal courts in their
`home states. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Liti-
`gation coordinated the cases in the Northern District
`of California. (DE 122).
`
`b. After the cases were coordinated, the district
`
`court appointed lead class counsel (Lead Counsel) for
`a putative nationwide class of indirect purchasers of
`CRTs. (DE 282). Lead Counsel filed a Consolidated
`Amended Complaint that alleged: (1) federal anti-
`trust claims under the Sherman Act and Clayton Act
`for equitable relief for persons in all 50 states; (2)
`violations of state antitrust laws; (3) violations of
`state consumer and unfair competition statutes; and
`
`
`
`3
`
`(4) claims for unjust enrichment and disgorgement of
`profits. (DE 437).1
`
`2. a. In 2015, Lead Counsel reached settlements
`
`with Phillips, Panasonic, Hitachi, Toshiba, Samsung
`SDI, Thomas, and TDA (the Defendants) with a pro-
`posed fund of over $576 million (DE 4351:9-10).
`
`Under the terms of the settlement, only class
`
`members in 22 state subclasses would receive compen-
`sation; yet every indirect purchaser in the country
`would release their claims against the Defendants (i.e.,
`the Respondents in this proceeding). (DE 3861:6-7, 26).
`
`b. Some class members objected to the settle-
`
`ment. (DE 4351:12). The scheme was unfair, they ex-
`plained, because several of the 29 states not included
`in the monetary recovery were “repealer states” having
`laws that would allow their citizens to recover mone-
`tary damages. (DE 4351:31-41). The class members in
`those states were releasing their state law damages
`
`
`1 Within the world of antitrust price-fixing litigation, the
`
`term “indirect product purchaser” refers to those persons who
`bought the product at issue from someone other than the defend-
`ant—typically from a retailer or wholesaler. Since the Court’s de-
`cision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, 746 (1977),
`only indirect product purchasers residing in certain states may
`bring antitrust damages suits against product manufacturers.
`“Currently, thirty-five states and the District of Columbia effec-
`tively repealed Illinois Brick (known as “repealer states”) in one
`form or another [to allow state-law damages claims by indirect
`purchasers], but fifteen states have not (known as “non-repealer
`states”).” Stromberg v. Qualcomm Inc., 14 F.4th 1059, 1064 (9th
`Cir. 2021) (citing Practical Law Antitrust, State Illinois Brick Re-
`pealer Laws Chart, Westlaw, https://bit.ly/3foROqr).
`
`
`
`4
`
`claims and, like the class member objectors in “non-
`repealer” states, their federal equitable claims for
`nothing. (DE 4351:38-41).
`
`c. Despite the class-member objections, the dis-
`
`trict court entered an order granting final approval to
`the settlement, and then entered a final judgment of
`dismissal with respect to the Defendants. (DE 4712:
`36-37; 4717).
`
`3. a. Several class-member objectors appealed
`
`the district court’s final approval order to the Ninth
`Circuit. At oral argument, the appellate panel ex-
`pressed serious concerns about the settlement’s fair-
`ness given that it released claims without providing
`compensation for their release. (DE 5335:4; 5335-
`1:transcript pages 38-53).
`
`b. Shortly after oral argument, Lead Counsel
`
`filed a motion in the district court for an indicative
`ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1,
`asking whether the court would allow Lead Counsel
`to amend the settlement if the Ninth Circuit permit-
`ted it to do so through a limited remand. (DE 5335).
`Lead Counsel offered to reduce plaintiff class counsel’s
`attorney’s fee award by $6 million (from $158,606,250
`to $152,606,250) and use that money to allow indirect
`purchasers in the three omitted repealer states that
`had appellant-objectors—Massachusetts, Missouri,
`and New Hampshire—to file claims against that fund.
`(DE 5335:5-9).
`
`The district court denied the motion for an indica-
`
`tive ruling. (DE 5362). The court expressly agreed with
`
`
`
`5
`
`the objector-appellants that Lead Counsel’s settlement
`had been unfair because it forced class members “to
`release their claims without compensation.” (DE
`5362:1). The court further conceded that, “with the
`benefit of hindsight,” it should not have approved the
`settlement. Id.
`
`The district court also expressed “concerns about
`the adequacy of the counsel who negotiated that set-
`tlement or whether they may have faced a conflict of
`interest” when doing so. Id. In the district court’s view,
`even in seeking to amend their settlement mid-appeal,
`“Lead Counsel appear[ed] to be bargaining with the
`[district court] to reduce the perceived value of the
`claims of the class members in the Omitted Repealer
`States.” (DE 5362:2). Such a conflict, the district court
`explained, would “require[ ] further exploration and
`potentially the appointment of separate counsel” for
`the ORS. Id.
`
`c. In light of the district court’s concession, the
`Ninth Circuit “remand[ed] th[e] case so that the dis-
`trict court [could] reconsider its approval of the settle-
`ment.” (App. 161-163). The Ninth Circuit cautioned
`that the settlement’s unfairness “necessarily af-
`fect[ed]” other issues on appeal, including Lead Coun-
`sels’ “adequacy of representation under Federal Rule[ ]
`of Civil Procedure 23” and “the attorneys’ fees awarded
`to Lead Counsel.” (App. 161). The Ninth Circuit ex-
`pressly chose not to vacate the district court’s final ap-
`proval order—leaving the national certified class
`intact. (App. 163).
`
`
`
`6
`
`B. Post-Remand Proceedings and Second Ap-
`peal
`1. a. On remand, Lead Counsel and his named,
`
`representative clients pursued a renewed settlement,
`but only on behalf of the class members in the same 22
`repealer states who were to be compensated in the
`failed, original settlement. They thus left class mem-
`bers in over half of the states that they had been rep-
`resenting without representation to continue their
`claims on remand. (DE 5587:2-3).
`
`This no-longer-represented contingent was com-
`
`prised of two groups of class members: (i) citizens of
`repealer states that had laws allowing for indirect pur-
`chasers to recover money in antitrust litigation (re-
`ferred to in the lower courts as the Omitted Repealer
`States (ORS) because Lead Counsel had omitted them
`from the monetary relief in the first settlement); and
`(ii) citizens of non-repealer states, who while having no
`state-law damages claims, had federal equitable
`claims for monetary recovery (referred to as the Non-
`Repealer States (NRS)). (DE 5449:2; 5451-1:1).
`
`As the district court recognized, with respect to
`
`those no-longer-represented groups there was an ap-
`parent “agreement among the parties that there [was]
`an adequacy of counsel issue which [was] sufficient to
`require the appointment of separate counsel” for the
`ORS and NRS. (DE 5444:15). The court accordingly
`appointed four law firms as “Interim Lead Counsel” for
`ORS and NRS subclasses. (DE 5518).
`
`
`
`7
`
`b. Although there was still a certified national
`
`class seeking relief under federal price-fixing law, and
`the district court had appointed counsel to represent
`ORS and NRS subclasses, the court-appointed class
`representatives for the national class were not from
`ORS or NRS states. They thus could not make allega-
`tions specific to those states. Accordingly, members of
`the certified nationwide class from the ORS and NRS
`states would need to be promoted to named class rep-
`resentatives.
`
`To fill those roles, the Petitioners—as ORS and
`
`NRS class members—moved to intervene-of-right un-
`der Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 and, simultane-
`ously, sought leave, under Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 15, to amend the consolidated complaint
`that had always included them as national class mem-
`bers. (DE 5565; 5567). As they explained, the class
`members in
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
