50 F. Supp. 3d 869
E.D. Mich.2014Background
- Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs allege a global conspiracy to fix prices and allocate OSS in the US market from 2006 onward.
- Defendants include TRW, Takata, Autoliv, Tokai Rika and related entities; multiple MDL component-part actions were consolidated in ED Mich.
- IPPs allege market concentration, high entry barriers, patents, and inelastic demand to support a plausible price-fixing scheme.
- Guilty pleas and DOJ investigations related to OSS components are referenced to show context and support for inference of conspiracy.
- Court previously centralized MDL 2311 and addressed similar arguments in other component-part complaints; the current ruling grants in part and denies in part the motion to dismiss.
- Court evaluates standing, nexus to intrastate commerce, statute of limitations/fraudulent concealment, and availability of state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of antitrust allegations | IPPs allege express agreement to fix prices and allocate OSS. | Defendants say allegations too broad; limited guilty pleas undermine reach. | Antitrust allegations deemed sufficient to withstand dismissal. |
| Standing of indirect purchasers under AGC factors | IPPs satisfy injury, directness, and passing-on of overcharges. | AGC factors resist standing for some claims. | AGC factors do not defeat standing; standing upheld for multiple jurisdictions. |
| Constitutional standing of IPPs | IPPs suffered injuries traceable to OSS price-fixing. | Injury-not-traceable or too speculative. | IPPs have Article III standing; injury traceable and redressable. |
| State-law claims viability (antitrust, CP, unjust enrichment) and class-action issues | State-law claims survive and class actions may proceed; some states sustain claims. | Some claims barred (e.g., Illinois antitrust class-action; SCUTPA class-bar; California unjust enrichment); certain statutes of limitations apply. | Antitrust in Illinois dismissed for ADPs; MA antitrust dismissed for IPPs; certain CP and unjust enrichment claims sustained; limitations effects recognized. |
| Nexus between conduct and intrastate commerce for CP claims | Alleged nationwide conduct affects intrastate commerce in multiple states. | Defendants challenge intrastate nexus in several states. | Nexus allegations sufficient; claims survive for DC, MS, NV, NY, NC, SD, TN, WV and others. |
Key Cases Cited
- Associated General Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1983) (AGC factors for antitrust standing; directness, injury, and related considerations)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard: plausibility to state a claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility requirement; threadbare recitals inadequate)
- In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., 586 F.Supp.2d 1109 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (analyze antitrust standing and pleading in multidistrict context)
- In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litig., 643 F.Supp.2d 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (context for admissibility of prior conspiracies and inference of ongoing conduct)
- In re GPU II Antitrust Litig., 540 F.Supp.2d 1089 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (pleading nexus and injury for indirect purchaser claims)
- In re Processed Egg Prod. Antitrust Litig., 851 F.Supp.2d 867 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (standing and injury concepts for indirect purchasers)