AT&T Mobility LLC, et al v. AU Optronics Corp., et al, No. 11-16188 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs alleged that they purchased billions of dollars worth of mobile handsets containing defendants' LCD panels and that the prices they paid for those handsets were artificially inflated because defendants had orchestrated a global conspiracy to fix the prices of LCD panels. The district court certified to the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) "the question whether the application of California antitrust law to claims against defendants based on purchases that occurred outside California would violate the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution." Because the underlying conduct in this case involved not just the indirect purchase of price-fixed goods, but also the conspiratorial conduct that led to the sale of those goods, the court answered in the negative. To the extent a defendant's conspiratorial conduct was sufficiently connected to California, and was not "slight and casual," the application of California law to that conduct was "neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair," and the application of California law did not violate that defendant's rights under the Due Process Clause. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's order dismissing plaintiffs' California law claims and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Due Process / Application of State Law. The panel reversed the district court’s partial dismissal of an antitrust action alleging a global conspiracy to fix the prices of LCD panels. The panel held that with respect to state-law claims based on purchases that occurred outside California, the defendants’ alleged underlying conduct involved not just the indirect purchase of price-fixed goods, but also the conspiratorial conduct that led to the sale of those goods. Accordingly, to the extent a defendant’s conspiratorial conduct was sufficiently connected to California, and was not “slight and casual,” the application of California antitrust law to that conduct would be neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair, and would not violate the Due Process Clause.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.