Court Grants Class Certification In SRAM Antitrust Litigation

December 10th, 2009

SFMS is one of the law firms involved in the action captioned, In re: Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation, No. 07-01819-CW, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On November 25, 2009, Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was granted. The opinion granting the Motion for Class Certification was authored by the Honorable Claudia Wilken. In this litigation, the Plaintiffs allege that, between 1996 and 2006, Defendants conspired to fix and maintain artificially high prices for SRAM. The certified class consists of all persons and entities residing in the United States who, from November 1,1996 through at least December 31, 2006, purchased SRAM in the United States indirectly from the Defendants for their own use and not for resale. Specifically excluded from this Class are the Defendants; the officers, directors or employees of any Defendant; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and any affiliate, legal representative, heir or assign of any Defendant. Also excluded are any federal, state or local governmental entities, any judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, and any juror assigned to this action. Additionally, the Court certified similar state plaintiff classes, including Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.

In certifying a nation-wide class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), the Court found that the Plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to establish Article III standing for their nation-wide injunctive class and that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that there is a risk that the conspiracy will persist or reform in the future. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the Court found that common issues predominate with respect to the Plaintiffs' proof of damages, conspiracy and impact elements of their antitrust conspiracy claim. The Court also ruled that the Rule 23(b)(3) requirement of superiority was satisfied because certifying the classes is superior to, and more manageable than, any other procedure available for the treatment of factual and legal issues raised by Plaintiffs' claims.

It is expected that within the next few months, notice will be sent out to Class Members notifying them of the Court's decision certifying the Classes.