In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litig.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
April 9, 2013, Decided; April 9, 2013, Filed
Case No. 2:09-md-02042
OPINION & ORDER
This Multi District Litigation matter involves putative class action claims asserted against multiple corporate Defendants by: 1) Direct Purchaser ("DP") Plaintiffs (who assert federal antitrust claims); and 2) Indirect Purchaser ("IP") Plaintiffs (who assert state-law antitrust, consumer protection act, and unjust enrichment claims). This Court has already ruled with respect to Motions to Dismiss as to the DP Plaintiffs' claims.
The matter is now before the Court with respect to remaining challenges to the claims asserted by the IP Plaintiffs. For the reasons that follow, with respect to the IP Plaintiffs' state-law [*15] antitrust claims, this Court shall rule:
1) consistent with its rulings as to the DP Plaintiffs' claims, that the IP Plaintiffs' current complaint now alleges plausible antitrust claims under Twombly;
2) that the AGC test should be used to determine whether antitrust standing exists under the laws of most of the states at issue and, under that test, the IP Plaintiffs lack antitrust standing; and
3) that the IP Plaintiffs have failed to allege a substantial effect on intrastate commerce and therefore cannot proceed with an antitrust claim under Tennessee's antitrust statute.
Thus, the only antitrust claims that will remain in this action are the IP Plaintiffs' claims under the antitrust statutes of North Carolina and Minnesota.
With respect to the IP Plaintiffs' state-law consumer protection act claims, this Court shall:
1) dismiss claims brought under the consumer protection acts of New Hampshire and North Carolina, for lack of intrastate commerce allegations;
2) dismiss claims brought under the consumer protection act of Florida, for failure to plead such claims with particularity;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.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50737 *; 2013-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P78,343; 2013 WL 1431756
In re: Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litigation
Subsequent History: Request denied by, Without prejudice In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litig., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52445 ( E.D. Mich., Apr. 11, 2013)
Appeal dismissed by Gateway KGMP Dev., Inc. v. Tecumseh Prods. (In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litig.), 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19574 (6th Cir.), 2013 FED App. 284P (6th Cir.) (6th Cir. Mich., 2013)
Prior History: In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litig., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98827 ( E.D. Mich., July 17, 2012)
antitrust, compressors, enrichment, unjust, Hermetic, consumer, indirect, unfair, conspiracy, Consolidated, manufacturers, price-fixing, deceptive, commerce, inflated, intrastate, refrigerators, unspecified, end-payors, finished, Revised, concealment, competitor, fraudulent, Tag-Along, household, state-law, discovery, entities, freezers