AT & T Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp.

The district court has certified to us 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 involves not just the indirect purchase of price-fixed goods, but also the conspiratorial conduct that led to the sale of those goods, we answer in the negative. To the extent a defendant’s conspiratorial conduct is sufficiently connected to California, and is not “slight and casual,” the application of California law to that conduct is “neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair,” and the application of California law does not violate that defendant’s rights under the Due Process Clause. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302, 312-13 , 101 S.Ct. 633 , 66 L.Ed.2d 521 (1981).

We therefore reverse the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiffs’ California law claims, 1 and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

*1108 BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs-Appellants AT & T Mobility LLC, AT & T Corporation,…