In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig. - 738 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

Rule:

Courts in the Northern District of California do not require plaintiffs in complex, multinational, antitrust cases to plead detailed, defendant-by-defendant allegations; instead they require plaintiffs to make allegations that plausibly suggest that each defendant participated in the alleged conspiracy. In complex, multinational, conspiracy cases, courts in the Northern District of California review specific allegations in the context of the complaint taken as a whole. Although not a pleading standards case, this approach is consistent with judicial precedent's admonition that the character and effect of a conspiracy are not to be judged by dismembering it and viewing its separate parts, but only by looking at it as a whole.

Facts:

Plaintiff direct and indirect cathode ray tube (CRT) purchasers filed a complaint against defendant manufacturers and others, alleging conspiracies regarding both CRTs and the products into which CRTs were incorporated. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, alleging failure to state a claim, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and lack of standing. A special master recommended that defendants' motions to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. Defendants objected to the recommendation.

Issue:

Should the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and lack of standing? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim were denied where the complaints alleged details about the structure and pattern of meetings, the individuals who attended, and the discussions that took place during those meetings as to, inter alia, price fixing, exchanging information, and restricting output. The argument that the complaint failed to adequately plead against each defendant was rejected as the factual allegations plausibly suggested that each defendant participated in the alleged conspiracy. The complaints were not dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C.S. § 6a as the complaints alleged adverse price effects in the United States due to defendants' unlawful activities. The motions to dismiss for lack of standing were denied given the allegations that the purchasers paid higher prices for CRTs and CRT products as a result of defendants' alleged unlawful activities.