Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig.

In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division

July 1, 2010, Decided; July 1, 2010, Filed

Case No. 08-MD-01952

Opinion

 [*995]  OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS (DKT. NOS. 202, 203)

This matter is before the Court on (1) Defendants Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. and Reddy Ice Corporation's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. No. 202), and (2) Defendants Arctic Glacier Income Fund, Arctic Glacier Inc. and Arctic Glacier International's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) (Dkt. No. 203). Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Response to both motions (Dkt. No. 212). Both Defendants have filed replies. (Dkt. Nos. 225, 226.) The Court heard oral argument on June 24, 2010. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Defendants' motions.

I. BACKGROUND

This action is the lead case in the consolidated class action In Re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., No. 08-MD-01952. In  [*996]  this multidistrict litigation involving 68 consolidated actions, Plaintiffs are both direct purchasers (retail stores and gas stations who purchased from Defendants)  [**23] and indirect purchasers (individuals who purchased from retail stores and gas stations) of Packaged Ice from Defendants in the United States. In this Opinion and Order, the Court addresses Defendants' motions to dismiss the Direct Purchasers' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("CAC").

The Direct Purchasers allege that Defendant Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Reddy Ice Corporation (the "Reddy Ice Defendants"), Defendant Arctic Glacier Income Fund ("AGIF"), its wholly owned subsidiary Arctic Glacier, Inc. ("AG") and AG's wholly owned subsidiary Arctic Glacier International, Inc. ("AGI") (collectively the "Arctic Glacier Defendants") and Defendant Home City Ice Company ("Home City") conspired to allocate customers and markets throughout the United States, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. The Reddy Ice and Arctic Glacier Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiffs' CAC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Arctic Glacier Income Fund and Arctic Glacier Inc. additionally move for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant Home City and Direct Purchaser  [**24] Plaintiffs have reached a proposed settlement. 1 

A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND - THE MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

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.

723 F. Supp. 2d 987 *; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65549 **; 2010-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P77,282

IN RE PACKAGED ICE ANTITRUST LITIGATION; DIRECT PURCHASERS ACTION

Subsequent History: Stay denied by In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77645 ( E.D. Mich., Aug. 2, 2010)

Prior History: In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34102 ( E.D. Mich., Mar. 26, 2010)

CORE TERMS

conspiracy, Packaged, allegations, Plaintiffs', Defendants', markets, customers, antitrust, motion to dismiss, manufacturers, guilty plea, allocate, pricing, territories, illegal agreement, discovery, nationwide, southeastern, Purchaser, collusive, employees, cases, sales, government investigation, anticompetitive conduct, factual allegations, Sherman Act, compete, fraudulent concealment, plea guilty

Antitrust & Trade Law, Regulated Practices, Private Actions, General Overview, Civil Procedure, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Evidence, Judicial Notice, Adjudicative Facts, Public Records, Governments, Courts, Authority to Adjudicate, Preliminary Considerations, Venue, Multidistrict Litigation, Pleadings, Complaints, Requirements for Complaint, Pleading & Practice, Motion Practice, Judicial Officers, Judges, Discretionary Powers, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Jurisdiction, In Rem & Personal Jurisdiction, Sherman Act, Scope, Monopolies & Monopolization, Conspiracy to Monopolize, Sherman Act, Claims, Summary Judgment, Motions for Summary Judgment, Legislation, Statute of Limitations, Equitable Estoppel, Trials, Jury Trials, Province of Court & Jury, Responses, Motions to Dismiss