In re Animation Workers Antitrust Litigation
123 F. Supp. 3d 1175
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Former animation studio employees (Plaintiffs) sued major studios (Pixar, Lucasfilm, DreamWorks, Disney, Sony, Blue Sky, ImageMovers/Digital Domain, etc.) alleging a conspiracy from ~2004 onward to (1) refrain from soliciting each other’s employees (no-poach/anti-solicitation) and (2) coordinate compensation ranges to suppress wages.
- Plaintiffs rely on internal emails, HR communications, industry survey meetings (Croner), and overlap with DOJ civil complaints and the related In re High‑Tech Employees litigation to allege express agreements and information exchanges among studios.
- Plaintiffs initially filed; the court previously dismissed their consolidated amended complaint as time‑barred for failing to plead continuing violation or fraudulent concealment with particularity, and granted leave to amend.
- In the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) Plaintiffs added detailed allegations of: (a) affirmative acts to keep the conspiracy secret (coded terms, phone/in‑person meetings, use of personal emails, document sealing in High‑Tech), and (b) pretextual/misleading public and private statements about compensation practices.
- Defendants moved to dismiss again, arguing statute of limitations, insufficient pleading as to Blue Sky and Sony, and failure to plead a per se wage‑fixing claim. The court denied the motion in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statute of limitations is tolled by fraudulent concealment | Plaintiffs pleaded specific affirmative acts and misleading statements that concealed the conspiracy until documents were unsealed in 2013 | Defendants: allegations only show self‑concealing conspiracy or passive concealment; Plaintiffs lacked due diligence and were on inquiry notice earlier | Court: tolling pled sufficiently—combination of pretextual statements and affirmative secrecy measures plausibly alleges fraudulent concealment; plaintiffs plausibly lacked knowledge and acted diligently once documents emerged |
| Whether fraudulent concealment must be alleged as to each defendant separately | Plaintiffs: co‑conspirator concealment can be imputed; Ninth Circuit conspiracy law permits imputation | Defendants: Ninth Circuit requires specific concealment allegations against each defendant (Barker) and Rule 9(b) requires identifying each defendant’s role | Court: co‑conspirator acts in furtherance of a conspiracy can toll limitations as to all members; plaintiffs need not plead separate concealment acts for each conspirator if participation in the conspiracy is plausibly alleged |
| Sufficiency of allegations against Blue Sky and Sony | Plaintiffs point to Pixar lists/emails, HR communications, and direct interactions (e.g., assurances not to poach) tying Blue Sky and Sony into the schemes | Defendants: factual allegations are speculative, inconsistent, or economically implausible; lack defendant‑specific documents | Court: factual allegations and reasonable inferences are sufficient at pleading stage; dismissed arguments rejected and claims against Blue Sky and Sony survive |
| Whether Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a per se wage‑fixing conspiracy (as distinct from a no‑poach agreement) | Plaintiffs: combined no‑poach and coordinated compensation‑range discussions (Croner meetings, custom survey cuts, email exchanges) plausibly constitute a single overarching conspiracy to suppress wages | Defendants: plaintiffs impermissibly conflate separate agreements; must plead independent per se wage‑fixing agreement | Court: plaintiffs plausibly alleged a single conspiracy encompassing anti‑solicitations and compensation coordination; per se antitrust claim survives pleading challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard requires plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (antitrust conspiracy pleading: enough factual matter to suggest agreement)
- Conmar Corp. v. Mitsui & Co., 858 F.2d 499 (9th Cir.) (affirmative acts, including acts in furtherance of conspiracy, can support fraudulent concealment)
- Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697 (9th Cir.) (fraudulent concealment requires active conduct beyond mere silence)
- E.W. French & Sons, Inc. v. Gen. Portland Inc., 885 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir.) (acts in furtherance of conspiracy may constitute affirmative concealment)
- Hexcel Corp. v. Ineos Polymers, Inc., 681 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir.) (elements of fraudulent concealment)
- Beltz Travel Serv., Inc. v. Int’l Air Transp. Ass’n, 620 F.2d 1360 (9th Cir.) (co‑conspirator liability; acts of any conspirator are attributable to all in furtherance of conspiracy)