87 F. Supp. 3d 1195
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Consolidated antitrust action by former employees against major animation studios alleging wage-fixing and anti-solicitation conspiracies.
- Plaintiffs allege two conduct theories: (i) anti-solicitation/not recruiting rival employees, and (ii) coordinated compensation ranges across studios.
- Defendants include Blue Sky, DreamWorks, ImageMovers (and related entities), Lucasfilm, Pixar, Sony entities, and Disney.
- Allegations connect to prior High-Tech Employees litigation and DOJ actions against Pixar and Lucasfilm.
- Plaintiffs seek damages, interest, fees, and a permanent injunction on behalf of a nationwide class.
- Court granted Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, holding claims time-barred and denying leave to amend beyond 30 days for a Second Amended Complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| accrual rule for antitrust claims | injury-rule should apply or discovery rule tolling available | antitrust claims accrue at time of injury (injury rule) | injury rule applied; claims accrues when injury occurred |
| continuing violations doctrine viability | alleged ongoing invasions restart statute | no overt acts within the period; no restart | no continuing violations; insufficient overt acts within period |
| fraudulent concealment tolling viability | defendants’ secret meetings and Croner survey show concealment | no affirmative acts beyond conspiracy; concealment not shown | fraudulent concealment not adequately pled; tolling not warranted |
| scope of the federal and state law claims and timeliness | claims relate to Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, and UCL; tolling may apply | claims time-barred under four-year limitations and lack timely tolling | claims time-barred; dismissal without prejudice for potential amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (1971) (injury-based accrual for antitrust claims)
- Beneficial Standard Life Insurance Co. v. Madariaga, 851 F.2d 271 (9th Cir.1988) (discovery vs. injury accrual in antitrust context)
- Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179 (1997) (injury-occurrence accrual; distinguishes discovery rule in civil RICO)
- Hexcel Corp. v. Ineos Polymers, Inc., 681 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir.2012) (fraudulent concealment burden and elements)
- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corp., 747 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir.2014) (overt act restarting statute under continuing violations)
- Oliver v. SD-3C LLC, 751 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.2014) (continued enforcement of conspiracy as overt act; price-fix analogy distinction)
- Conmar Corp. v. Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc., 858 F.2d 499 (9th Cir.1988) (affirmative concealment required beyond mere concealment by conspiracy)
- Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litig., 738 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (context for public misrepresentations and concealment patterns)
- TFT-LCD Antitrust Litig., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (illustrates explicit pretext for price changes and secrecy)
- Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Solutions, Inc., 55 Cal.4th 1185 (2013) (UCL discovery rule in appropriate circumstances)