Eidoo v. Infineon Technologies AG, 2015 ONSC 3668
CITATION: Eidoo v. Infineon Technologies AG, 2015 ONSC 3668
COURT FILE NO.: 05-CV-4340
COURT FILE NO.: 10-CV-15178CP
DATE: 20150608
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
KHALID EIDOO and CYGNUS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
Plaintiffs
– and –
INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG, INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CANADA INC., MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC. o/a CRUCIAL TECHNOLOGIES, MOSEL VITELIC CORP., MOSEL VITELIC INC. and ELPIDA MEMORY, INC.
Defendants
AND BETWEEN:
KHALID EIDOO and CYGNUS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
Plaintiffs
– and –
HITACHI LTD., HITACHI AMERICA, HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), HITACHI CANADA LTD., MITSUBISHI ELECTRONIC CORPORATION, MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC SALES CANADA INC., MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC & ELECTRONICS USA, INC., NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION USA, NEC CORPORATION, NEC CORPORATION OF AMERICA, NEC CANADA, RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION fka NEC ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. fka NEC ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., RENESAS ELECTRONICS CANADA LTD., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONICS COMPONENTS INC., TOSHIBA OF CANADA LIMITED, WINBOND ELECTRONICS CORPORATION AND WINBOND ELECTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA
Defendants
Jonathan J. Foreman for the Plaintiffs
Eric Letts for five Class Members
HEARD: In writing
Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
REASONS FOR DECISION
PERELL, J.
[1] This is a motion with respect to the distribution phase of this class proceeding. For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the motion on terms. The terms are that I repeat the direction I made in my Reasons for Decision reported as Eidoo v. Infineon Technologies AG, 2015 ONSC 3282. In those Reasons, I directed Class Counsel to file a notice of motion and supporting affidavit material for a motion for directions, and I scheduled that motion for July 24, 2015.
[2] The background circumstances to the immediate and previous motion are explained in those Reasons for Decision. As I explained, Class Counsel has been contacted by Eric Letts, an Ottawa, Ontario lawyer acting for five Class Members. Mr. Letts advised Class Counsel that the distribution plan that had been approved by the courts in Ontario, British Columbia, and Québec contravened sections 1 and 3 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19. Mr. Letts told Class Counsel that his clients intended to request damages pursuant to s. 46.1 of the Code and an amendment to the distribution plan.
[3] Class Counsel denied any contravention of the Human Rights Code.
[4] There were discussions and negotiations between Mr. Letts and Class Counsel, and Mr. Letts and his clients have now signed a letter agreement with Class Counsel in this action and in the companion actions in Québec and British Columbia.
[5] It appears that Mr. Letts and his clients are satisfied that any problems with the Human Rights Code can be resolved by giving the Claims Administrator an instruction to be posted on the claims website for the duration of the claims process. The instruction is as follows:
When more than one claim is filed for the same household, the claims administrator shall provide the class members with the opportunity to explain the circumstances of their claims. The claims administrator may permit a reasonable adjustment of the distribution rules in order to facilitate such claims as it considers appropriate. In doing so, the claims administrator may require reasonable proof and explanation by the class member.
[6] With the making and dissemination of this instruction, Mr. Letts and his clients agree to withdraw any complaint they may have and to certify that no motion will be made or any administrative proceeding taken in any forum in respect of the Canadian DRAM plan of settlement administration and claims process.
[7] The letter agreement provides that the instruction is to not to be effective unless and until it is also approved by the Superior Court of Québec and the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
[8] Class Counsel submits that the instruction is consistent with the current practices of the Claims Administrator and they fully support the instruction. They submit that although the instruction is not actually necessary, it will assist the Claims Administrator in completing its work.
[9] Class Counsel submit that the instruction, which is subject to any direction the Courts may give, will be posted on the claims website. It will be incorporated into the final communication effort to remind Class Members of the upcoming claims deadline. Class Counsel submit that the instruction will be referenced in the decision letters to Class Members by the Claims Administrator should any of them need further assistance and that the instruction will be used to evaluate and adjudicate the end consumer claims.
[10] Class Counsel advise that Mr. Letts will be paid some costs as agreed or as determined by the Court if necessary. Apparently, the matter of costs remains under discussion and the Court will be advised if the matter is resolved or if a decision by the Court is required.
[11] Whatever is going on here, it does not work and whatever it is, it is not an appropriate and responsible way for the court to supervise a class proceeding. The proposed instruction may or may not be adequate to address what may or may not be a problem, raised by persons who may or may not have standing to challenge the approved settlement distribution scheme, but, in any event, the Court cannot endorse whatever this is at the whim of Class Counsel and Mr. Letts and his clients without ruling on the merits of the underlying dispute. The Court cannot indirectly endorse an anti-suit injunction prohibiting Mr. Letts’ clients from taking administrative proceedings that may or may not be available to them assuming that they are entitled to make claims notwithstanding the releases that are a part of the court approved settlement. The claim for costs is problematic. Why should costs be paid out of the settlement fund absent an actual ruling on the merits of the motion?
[12] The motion for directions shall proceed so that the Court can make a ruling on the merits.
Perell, J.
Released: June 8, 2015
CITATION: Eidoo v. Infineon Technologies AG, 2015 ONSC 3668
COURT FILE NO.: 05-CV-4340
COURT FILE NO.: 10-CV-15178CP
DATE: 20150608
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
KHALID EIDOO and CYGNUS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
Plaintiffs
– and –
INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG, INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CANADA INC., MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC. o/a CRUCIAL TECHNOLOGIES, MOSEL VITELIC CORP., MOSEL VITELIC INC. and ELPIDA MEMORY, INC.
Defendants
AND BETWEEN:
KHALID EIDOO and CYGNUS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
Plaintiffs
– and –
HITACHI LTD., HITACHI AMERICA, HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), HITACHI CANADA LTD., MITSUBISHI ELECTRONIC CORPORATION, MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC SALES CANADA INC., MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC & ELECTRONICS USA, INC., NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION USA, NEC CORPORATION, NEC CORPORATION OF AMERICA, NEC CANADA, RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION fka NEC ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. fka NEC ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., RENESAS ELECTRONICS CANADA LTD., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONICS COMPONENTS INC., TOSHIBA OF CANADA LIMITED, WINBOND ELECTRONICS CORPORATION AND WINBOND ELECTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA
Defendants
REASONS FOR DECISION
PERELL J.
Released: June 8, 2015