995 F. Supp. 2d 125
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- MDL involving indirect purchasers of Vitamin C against Chinese manufacturers over alleged price fixing (2001–2006).
- Direct and indirect purchaser actions consolidated; Philon and Audette separately pleaded California and Massachusetts claims respectively; Keane action encompasses 21 states.
- North China Pharmaceutical Group Corp. was added to direct purchaser case in 2007 but not to indirect purchaser actions.
- A stay stipulation (Nov. 2008) stayed indirect purchaser cases pending direct purchaser judgment; North China not a party to that stipulation.
- Direct purchaser trial in 2013 resulted in a verdict against North China and Hebei totaling $153 million after trebling and settlements; indirect purchasers seek to amend to add North China in the indirect actions.
- Court must decide whether addition of North China relates back under Rule 15(c) or state law theories to save time-barred claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 15(c)(1)(C) allows relation back for an added party | Plaintiffs contend it relates back under Krupski and Barrow. | North China argues no relation back because no mistake re: identity; this is an additional party case, not a wrong party case. | Relation back denied under federal Rule 15(c)(1)(C). |
| Whether the stay stipulation tolls the limitations period for North China | Stay to toll claims against North China. | North China not a party to stay stipulation; toll not binding. | Stay stipulation cannot toll claims against North China. |
| Whether Rule 15(c)(1)(A) permits state-law relation back for additional party | Massachusetts law may permit, potentially saving Massachusetts claims. | Massachusetts mirrors but ultimately allows broader relief; other states do not. | Massachusetts allows Massachusetts claims to relate back; other states do not; overall denial except Massachusetts. |
| Whether Massachusetts relation back should save the North China claim in light of prejudice concerns | Massachusetts rule is liberal and allows addition of party. | Undue prejudice to North China can occur; repose interest strong under Krupski. | Prejudice not undue; Massachusetts claim allowed to proceed against North China. |
| What is the overall disposition of the amendment | Motion should be granted to amend except as to non-Massachusetts claims. | Amendment should be denied to non-Massachusetts claims. | Denied to non-Massachusetts claims; granted for Massachusetts claims; Second Amended Consolidated Complaint to be filed within 14 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (2010) (relation back hinges on mistaken identity, not plaintiff knowledge)
- Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dep’t, 66 F.3d 466 (2d Cir. 1995) (lack of knowledge not a mistake under Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii))
- Hogan v. Fischer, 738 F.3d 509 (2d Cir. 2013) (reaffirmed Barrow on relation back)
- In re Allbrand Appliance & Television Co., Inc., 875 F.2d 1021 (2d Cir. 1989) (identity-related exception to relation back)
- Wadsworth v. Boston Gas Co., 352 Mass. 86 (1967) (Mass. allows addition of party under relation back)
- National Lumber Co. v. LeFrancois Const. Corp., 430 Mass. 663 (2000) (Mass. liberal approach to relation back)
- Costello v. Casler, 254 P.3d 631 (Nev. 2011) (wrong party case; not applicable to added party)