Filed: Feb. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 24, 2015
Summary: ORDER SUGGESTING REMAND TO TRANSFEROR COURTS SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred to this Court for coordinated pretrial proceedings numerous antitrust actions relating to an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices for thin film transistor-liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) panels, which are used in computer monitors, flat panel television sets, and other electronic devices. The above-captioned actions were among the cases transferred to t
Summary: ORDER SUGGESTING REMAND TO TRANSFEROR COURTS SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred to this Court for coordinated pretrial proceedings numerous antitrust actions relating to an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices for thin film transistor-liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) panels, which are used in computer monitors, flat panel television sets, and other electronic devices. The above-captioned actions were among the cases transferred to th..
More
ORDER SUGGESTING REMAND TO TRANSFEROR COURTS
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred to this Court for coordinated pretrial proceedings numerous antitrust actions relating to an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices for thin film transistor-liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) panels, which are used in computer monitors, flat panel television sets, and other electronic devices. The above-captioned actions were among the cases transferred to this Court pursuant to the JPML's April 20, 2007 transfer order and this Court's July 3, 2007 related case pretrial order #1.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a), pursuant to which these cases were transferred here, provides in relevant part:
When civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact are pending in different districts, such actions may be transferred to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Such transfers shall be made by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation . . . upon its determination that transfers for such proceedings will be for the convenience of parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions. Each action so transferred shall be remanded by the panel at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings to the district from which it was transferred unless it shall have been previously terminated.
(emphasis added). Once "coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings" have been completed in the transferee court, the transferred cases must be remanded to their original courts (whether for trial or otherwise). Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 28 (1998). The authority to do so, however, rests entirely with the JPML; this Court lacks the power to remand an action transferred to it under Section 1407. See id. (noting § 1407(a) "imposes a duty on the Panel to remand any such action to the original district `at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings'"). The transferee judge may recommend remand of an action to the transferor court by filing a suggestion of remand with the Panel. See Panel Rule 10.1(b)(i).
The Court concludes that the purposes behind consolidating these related actions in this Court have now been served. The Court has addressed numerous discovery disputes, dispositive motions, and other pretrial issues involving facts and legal questions common to the various cases in this MDL proceeding. No further pretrial motions raising common questions are pending in these cases, and remand to the transferor courts appears to be in the interest of judicial efficiency.
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 10.1(b)(I) of the Rules of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the Court SUGGESTS that the Panel REMAND the following cases to their transferor courts:
The AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust, by and through Kenneth A. Welt, Liquidating Trustee v. AU Optronics, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-5781 SI
CompuCom Systems, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-6241 SI
Interbond Corp. of America v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-3763 SI
MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-829 SI
Office Depot, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-2225 SI
Tech Data Corp., et al. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-5765 SI
Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-3205 SI.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
