Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

In re Interior Molded Doors Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litig.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division

May 4, 2020, Decided; May 4, 2020, Filed

Lead Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00850-JAG

Opinion

In this consolidated class action, the plaintiffs contend that Masonite Corporation and JELD-WEN, Inc., unlawfully conspired to fix prices in the market for interior molded doors ("IMDs"). The plaintiffs1 allege that they bought IMDs at inflated prices indirectly from the defendants through distributors. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and damages under various state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws.

The defendants previously moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint (the "initial complaint") for failure to state a claim. Although the Court allowed many of the plaintiffs' claims to proceed, the Court dismissed the claims under the laws of twenty-five states for lack of Article III standing. The plaintiffs have since filed an amended consolidated class action complaint (the "amended complaint"), adding new named plaintiffs to revive several of the previously dismissed state law claims. The defendants have now moved to dismiss some of the revived claims in the amended [*8]  complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the motion to dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND2

In the initial complaint, the plaintiffs asserted claims under the laws of twenty-five states where no named plaintiff lived or suffered harm. Because the plaintiffs could not show that they sustained an injury in those states, the Court held that they lacked Article III standing to pursue their claims under those states' laws. Thus, the Court dismissed the claims under the laws of Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. (Id. at 23.) With the Court's permission, the plaintiffs filed the amended complaint to revive several of the previously dismissed state law claims. (See Dk. No. 134.)

The amended complaint added new named plaintiffs who were residents of or sustained an injury in some of the above states (the "new plaintiffs"). The defendants have now moved to dismiss the following claims of the new plaintiffs in the amended complaint: [*9]  (1) the New Hampshire consumer protection claim; (2) the Utah consumer protection claim; (3) the Maine antitrust claim; (4) the West Virginia consumer protection claim; (5) the Utah consumer protection claim of named plaintiff Collin Salazar Real Estate LLC; and (6) the new plaintiffs' damages claims outside the relevant statutes of limitations.3

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78458 *

IN RE: INTERIOR MOLDED DOORS INDIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Prior History: In re Interior Molded Doors Antitrust Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36167 (E.D. Va., Mar. 6, 2019)

CORE TERMS

consumer protection, plaintiffs', amended complaint, initial complaint, named plaintiff, antitrust, limitations, relates back, motion to dismiss, consumer, residents, revive, anticompetitive conduct, claim for damages, equitable tolling, class action, consolidated, unconscionable, defendants', indirect, prices, unfair