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

In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

October 2, 2014, Decided; October 2, 2014, Filed

Case No.: 13-MD-2420 YGR


Omnibus Order Re: Motions to Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaints of Direct and Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs

(DKT. NOS. 401, 424-31.)

Table of Contents


Part 1: Background

Part 2: Phase 2 Motion to Dismiss the IPP-SCAC

I. Overview of Classes and Claims Asserted

II. Analysis

A. IPP Antitrust Standing Under AGC

1. The Framework of Antitrust Standing

2. Determining the Content of State-Law Antitrust Standing Doctrine

a. Framework for Ascertaining State Law

b. Review of Proffered Authorities

3. Application of AGC to the IPP-SCAC

a. First Factor: Nature of [*48]  Plaintiffs' Injuries and Market Participation

b. Second Factor: Directness of Injury

c. Third Factor: Speculative Nature of the Harm

d. Final Factors: Risk of Duplicative Recovery and Unduly Complex

Apportionment of Damages

B. Article III Standing

C. Application of Illinois Brick to Missouri Law

D. Class Action Claims in Illinois and South Carolina

E. New Hampshire Claims

F. Price-Fixing under Arkansas's Deceptive Trade Practices Act

III. Conclusion as to Phase 2 Motion

Part 3: Phase 3 Motion to Dismiss the DPP-SCAC

I. DPP Antitrust Standing under Illinois Brick and Royal Printing

II. DPP Antitrust Standing under AGC

A. Legal Standard

B. DPP Antitrust Standing under AGC for Purchases of Batteries

C. DPP Antitrust Standing under AGC for Purchases of Battery Products

1. Antitrust Injury

2. Other AGC Factors

III. Conclusion as to Phase 3 Motion

Part 4: Individual Motions to Dismiss

I. Relevant Procedural Background

II. Legal Standard

III. Analysis

A. Motion of MCA and HML (Dkt. No. 427)

B. Motion of LGCAI (Dkt. No. 425)

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.

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141358 *; 2014-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P78,927; 2014 WL 4955377

IN RE: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Order Relates to: All Direct and Indirect Purchaser Actions

Subsequent History: Later proceeding at In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164123 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2014)

Prior History: In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7516 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 21, 2014)


antitrust, battery, conspiracy, Phase, lithium, indirect, consumer, price-fixed, entities, manufactured, subsidiaries, packed, conspirator, suffice, chain, consolidation, indirect-purchaser, nationwide, overcharge, finished, joined, inextricably, subclasses, discovery, venture, Energy, restrained, seller, Reply, duplicative

Antitrust & Trade Law, Sherman Act, Scope, General Overview, Private Actions, Standing, Clayton Act, Purchasers, Indirect Purchasers, Direct Purchasers, Regulated Practices, State Regulation, Civil Procedure, Preliminary Considerations, Federal & State Interrelationships, Erie Doctrine, Governments, Courts, Judicial Precedent, Requirements, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Pleadings, Complaints, Requirements for Complaint, Market Definition, Class Actions, Prerequisites for Class Action, Adequacy of Representation, Constitutional Law, Case or Controversy, Third Party Standing, Justiciability, Special Proceedings, Judicial Discretion, Consumer Protection, Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices, Rule Application & Interpretation, Mergers & Acquisitions Law, Liabilities & Rights of Successors, Pretrial Matters, Conferences, Case Management