Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Intel v NewYork Letter from New York Attorney General of Dec. 22

Intel v NewYork Letter from New York Attorney General of Dec. 22

Ratings: (0)|Views: 166 |Likes:
Published by IDG News Service

More info:

Published by: IDG News Service on Dec 27, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/27/2011

pdf

text

original

 
ERIC
T.
SCHNEIDERMAN
A
TIORNEYGENERAL
DIVISIONOFECONOMICJUSTICE
EXECUTIVE
BUREAU
By
ECF
E-Filing
TheHonorableLeonardP.StarkUnitedStatesDistrictJudgeJ.CalebBoggsFederalBuilding844
N.
KingStreet,Unit26,Room6100Wilmington,
DE
.19801-3556December22,2011Re:
State
of
NewYorkv.IntelCorporation,
CaseNo.09-cv-00827(LPS)DearJudgeStark:AsdiscussedduringourDecember
15
teleconference,giventhecombination
of
theconservativemethodologyemployed
by
NewYork'sexperttocalculatedamagesandYourHonor'srecentdecision
on
statuteoflimitations,NewYorkisnolongerabletoproceedbeforeYourHonorwithitsclaimfordamagesunderitsstate'slaws.New
York's
claimsforequitable'reliefwerenotdismissedandNewYorkretainsdamagesclaimsunderfederallaw,butthosearemuchsmallerinamount.Asordered,wewritetoproposeapathforwardforthiscase.
Proposal
NewYorkproposesthatitdismissitsfederallawclaimstherebydivestingthecourt
of
originaljurisdiction.Thereafter,theCourtshoulddismissthestatelawclaimswithoutprejudice.NewYorkmaythenfileinNewYorkstatecourttoseekwhateverremediesareavailabletoitthere.Becausethisproposalwouldentailthedismissal
of
certainclaimsnow,itlimitstheclaimsagainstIntel,avoidsanyadditionalexpenditures
of
resourcesandtimeinthisDistrictonthiscase,andallowsNewYorkState,itsagenciesandcitizenstheirday
in
courttoaddresstheirmeritoriousclaims
of
illegalanti-competitiveconductcommitted
by
IntelagainstNewYorkState,itsagenciesandpoliticalsubdivisions,anditscitizens.
TheCourt
Should
DismisstheCase(or
Lack
of
OriginalJurisdiction
BecauseStatesarenotsubjecttodiversityjurisdiction,theCourtcannotretainthecasebasedondiversity.
See
Wright
&
Miller
§
3602
("It
iswellsettled
by
decisions
of
courtsatalllevels
of
thefederaljudiciary
...
thatastate
...
isnotacitizenforpurposes
of
Section1332.");
120
BROADWAY,
NEW
YORK,
NY
10271
PHONE
(212)
416-8050.
FAX
(212)
416-8139.
WWW.AG.NY.GOV
Case 1:09-cv-00827-LPS Document 296 Filed 12/22/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 5693
 
seealsoMoor
v.
County
of
Alameda,
411U.S.693(1973)(same).Withoutfederalquestionor.diversityjurisdiction,theCourtnolongerhasoriginaljurisdiction.Andbecausejudicialeconomy,convenienceandfairnessdonotweigh
in
favor
of
theCourtretainingtheclaimsundersupplementaljurisdiction,YourHpnorshoulddismissNew
York's
statelawclaimswithoutprejudiceforlack
of
originaljurisdiction.Whetheracourtdecidestoexercisesupplementaljurisdictioniswithinitsdiscretion.!But,theThirdCircuithasstated''wheretheclaimoverwhichthedistrictcourthasoriginaljurisdictionisdismissedbeforetrial,thedistrictcourt
must
declinetodecidethependentstateclaims
unless
considerations
of
judicialeconomy,convenienceandfairnesstothepartiesprovideanaffirmativejustific.ationfordoingso."
Borough
of
WestMifflin
v.
Lancaster,
45F.3d780,788(3dCir.1995)(emphasisadded);
seealsoParker
&
ParsleyPetroleum
v.
DresserIndus.,
972F.2d580,585(5thCir.1992)("Our
g e n ~ r a l
ruleistodismissstateclaimswhenthefederalclaimstowhichtheyarependentaredismissed.'');16
Moore's
FederalPracticeCivil
§
106.66.ThisconceptstemsfromUnitedStates.SupremeCourtprecedent:"Certainly,
if
thefederalclaimsaredismissedbeforetrial
...
thestateclaimsshouldbedismissedaswell.Similarly,
if
itappearsthatthestateissuessubstantiallypredominate,whetherinterms
of
proof,
of
thescope
of
theissuesraised,or
of
thecomprehensiveness
of
theremedysought,thestateclaims
may
bedismissedwithoutprejudiceandleftforresolutiontostatetribunals."
UnitedMineWorkers
v.
Gibbs,
383U.S.715,726-27(1966).ThisCourtrecentlyacknowledgedtheseconceptsin
Thomas
v.
BoardofEduc.,
759F.Supp.2d
477,498,499
(D.Del.2010),stating,"[g]enerally,where,ashere,allsubstantivefederalclaimsareresolvedpriortotrial,theprimaryjustificationsforretainingjurisdictionoverstatelawclaimsarenolongerviable.
In
Thomas,
thisCourtretainedjurisdictionbutnotedthattheretention
of
thatcaseundersupplementaljurisdictionwas"rare,"andbefittingthe''unique''circumstances
of
thatcase.
We
submitthatunlike
Thomas,
thisisnotone
of
thoserareoruniquecases.
JudicialEconomyWeighsinFavor
of
Dismissal
First,unlikein
Thomas,
theclaimsatissueherearenotDelawarestatelaw
claims
DelawarefederalcourtshavenointerestinadjudicatingNewYorkstatelawclaimsbrought
by
aseparatestatesovereignthatdonotinvolveactscommittedinDelaware.
See,e.g.,Zeglen
v.
Miller,
2008WL696940*11(M.D.Pa.2008)(holdingthatfederalcourtshavenointerest
in
decidinganystatelawclaims);
Duke/FluorDanielCaribbean
v.
AlstonPower,
2004WL2095702(D.Del.2004)(holding
interalia
thatcourtresourcesshould
be
availablefirstfortheadjudication
of
federalclaims).Indeed,itiswell-settledasamatter
of
comitythatdecisionson
I
TheSupremeCourtexplainsthedoctrine
of
discretion
by
notingthat"[supplemental]jurisdictionisadoctrine
of
discretion,not
of
plaintiff's
right."
UnitedMineWorkers
v.
Gibbs,
383U.S.715,726(1966).
Of
course,inthisinstance,theplaintiffisnotadvocatingfortheCourttoretainsupplementaljurisdiction.
120
BROADWAY,
NEW
YORK,
NY
10271-
PHONE
(212)416-8222-
FAX
(212)416-8816-
WWW.AG.NY.GOV
2
Case 1:09-cv-00827-LPS Document 296 Filed 12/22/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 5694
 
issuesinvolvingstatelawarebetterlefttothestatecourts.
See,e.g.,UnitedMineWorkers
v.
Gibbs,
383U.S.at
726
(''Needlessdecisions
of
statelawshould
be
avoidedbothasamatter
of
comityandtopromotejusticebetweentheparties,
by
procuringfor
them
asurer-footedreading
of
applicablelaw.");
Johnson
v.
Cullen,
925F.Supp.244,252
(D.
Del.1996)(dismissingstatelawclaimwithoutprejudiceforlack
of
subjectmatterjurisdictionatsummaryjudgmentstagewherefederalclaimswerebarred).Second,while
we
recognizeandappreciatethetimeandenergythattheCourthasdevotedtodiscoverydisputesandtheotherrecentmotions
in
thiscase,theissuestodatehavelargelybeenprocedural.In
Thomas,
by
contrast,theCourtretainedjurisdiction,
in
part,because"resources[were]devotedtopresidingovermediationandlaterpreparingforandhearingoralargument
on
-andwritingthisopinion-resolvingthependingmotionforsummaryjudgment."59F.Supp.
2d
at499.Thesefactsdonotexisthere.TheCourthasnot
had
theopportunitytomediatethisdispute,
and
althoughmotionsforsummaryjudgmentarepending,oralargumenthasnotbeenset
or
heard.
SeealsoUntracht
v.
Fileri,
454F.Supp.
2d
289,327-28(W.D.Pa.2006)(decliningtoretainjurisdictionevenaftertheclose
of
discoveryanddecisions
on
multiplemotionsincludingsummaryjudgment).Indeed,Inteliscurrentlysupplementingone
of
thosesummaryjudgmentmotions,whichwillleadtofurtherbriefing.Third,unlikein
Thomas
or
inothersupplementaljurisdictioncases,theCourthasmadenodeterminationthatthefederalclaimsarewithoutmeritandshould
be
dismissed
..
Here,theStateisproposingtheirdismissal,which
in
itselfsavesresources.Thisresultactuallycreatesnumerousefficienciesthatwouldotherwiserequiretheinvestment
of
substantialadditionaljudicialresourcesandtime.Asreferencedabove,Intel'ssummaryjudgmentmotionsarepending,includingtheonecurrentlybeingsupplemented(whichtheCourtcouldnotevenconsideruntilfurtherbriefing'iscomplete).Also,pendingareIntel'sDaubertmotion,andsevenmotionsinlimine.Withoutadismissal,therecould
be
significantmotionpracticeinanticipation
of
anappeal.Theappealitselfwouldrequiretheuse
of
theThirdCircuit'stimeandresources.Inaddition,NewYorkhasclaimsforinjunctivereliefthathavenotyetevenreachedthebriefingstage,andwouldrequireaseparatebenchtrial.Finally,thereisthematter
of
thetrialtothejury.Atrial
of
thefederalclaimswouldrequirepresentation
of
thesameliabilityevidenceasatrial
of
boththestateandfederalclaimstogether;thus,themostefficientresultforallpartiesinvolvedisto
try
thecaseonlyonce
in
oneforum.Proceedingwith
NewYork's
federalclaimswouldrequiretrial
of
thoseclaimsinFebruary,
or
once
an
appeal
on
thestatelawclaimswasdecided(togetherwiththestatelawclaims
if
New
Yorkprevailed),
or
potentiallytwice(once
in
Februaryandasecondtime
if
New
Yorkprevailedafterappeal).
NewYork's
proposaleconomizes
on
theseexpenditures
of
theCourt'sresources.Consideredasawhole,theefficiencies
do
notweighinfavor
of
retainingjurisdiction.
FairnessWeighsinFavor
of
Dismissal
Afairresultallows
New
Yorkitsdayincourt.Casesareroutinelybroughtinasecondcourtwhendismissedinthefirstcourt
on
proceduralgroundssuchasthoseatissuehere.
2
2
Dismissalonstatute
of
limitationsgroundsdoesnotbarrefiling,particularlyinaStatewithstrongcontactswiththecase.
SeeSemtekInt.Inc.
v.
Lockheed,
531U.S.497,504(2001)("Thetraditionalruleisthatexpiration
of
theapplicablestatute
of
limitationsmerelybarstheremedyanddoesnotextinguishthesubstantiveright,sothat
120
BROADWAY,
NEW
YORK,
NY
10271-
PHONE
(212)416-8222-
FAX
(212)416-8816-
WWW.AG.NY.GOV
3
Case 1:09-cv-00827-LPS Document 296 Filed 12/22/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 5695

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->