In Re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litigation
756 F. Supp. 2d 637
E.D. Pa.2010Background
- Plaintiffs allege Immucor and Ortho Clinical conspired to unreasonably restrain trade in blood reagents in violation of § 1.
- The Court previously denied motions to dismiss; defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration and for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal.
- A DOJ criminal investigation into the blood banking industry was informally closed around November 2010.
- Insurance Brokerage ( Third Circuit) discussed requirements under Twombly/Iqbal and the role of ‘plus factors’ in plausibility determinations.
- Defendants argue Insurance Brokerage requires dismissal; the Court analyzes it as a matter of law to reassess the CAC.
- The Court ultimately denies both the Motion for Reconsideration and the Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Insurance Brokerage require dismissal? | Insurance Brokerage mandates dismissal if no plausible claim. | Insurance Brokerage clarifies/mandates dismissal under Twombly/Iqbal. | Insurance Brokerage does not mandatorily require dismissal. |
| Do plaintiffs plausibly allege a § 1 conspiracy given the plus factors? | Plus factors (contract cancellations, price increases, etc.) support plausibility of a conspiracy. | Many plus factors could be explained by self-interest; no plausible conspiracy shown. | Plaintiffs plausibly allege a conspiracy when context and non-obvious-plus factors are considered. |
| Should the court certify an interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b)? | Interlocutory appeal would address controlling legal questions early. | Interlocutory appeal would not materially advance termination of the case. | Denied; certification would not materially advance the litigation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (antitrust plausibility standard; parallel conduct must be plausibly explained)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard refined for pleadings)
- In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2010) (plus factors must defeat obvious alternative self-interest; bid-rigging as enough to plausibly allege a conspiracy)
- Superior Offshore Int'l, Inc. v. Bristow Grp., Inc., 738 F. Supp. 2d 505 (D. Del. 2010) (analysis of plus factors and plausibility in complex cases)
- Brooke Grp. Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (U.S. 1993) (conscious parallelism and tacit collusion conceptually discussed)
- Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (motion for reconsideration standards)
- W. Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Inc. v. UPMC, 627 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (Twombly plausibility standard in complex cases)