In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation
154 F. Supp. 3d 918
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Consolidated antitrust class actions by direct purchasers (DPPs) and first-level indirect purchasers (IPPs) allege global price‑fixing of capacitors by numerous manufacturer defendants.
- Court previously sustained many pleaded allegations but dismissed some defendants and certain claims with leave to amend; plaintiffs filed amended complaints and new individual plaintiff Flextronics joined DPPs.
- IPPs’ amended complaint asserts state antitrust and consumer‑protection claims under California and 31 other states, though only five named IPP plaintiffs remain (primarily California residents and Circuit City’s liquidating trustee in Virginia).
- Defendants moved to dismiss: a joint motion challenging IPPs’ non‑California state‑law claims for Article III standing, and individual motions by several corporate defendants (AVX, Holy Stone entities, Hitachi Chemical Co. America (HCA), Shizuki/ASC).
- Court resolved standing threshold issues before class certification and applied the claim‑by‑claim Article III standing test, focusing on whether a named plaintiff suffered an in‑state purchase injury for each asserted state law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for non‑California state law claims (IPPs) | IPPs: overall monetary injury from paying supra‑competitive prices suffices; standing should not be conflated with statutory standing and can be evaluated broadly or deferred until class certification | Defs: named IPPs lack Article III injury in states where no named plaintiff purchased capacitors in‑state | Dismissed non‑California state claims for lack of Article III standing; at least one named plaintiff must allege an in‑state purchase injury for each state law; leave to amend limited to Jan 27, 2016 |
| HCA (IPPs) — sufficiency of allegations against U.S. subsidiary | IPPs: amended allegations show parent control and that subsidiaries, including HCA, effectuated cartel aims via agents and employees | HCA: IPPs still fail to allege that HCA consciously joined or participated in the conspiracy | Denied HCA’s motion as IPPs’ amended allegations were sufficient at Rule 12(b)(6) stage to plausibly allege HCA’s involvement |
| DPPs — sufficiency of conspiracy allegations against AVX, Holy Stone, Hitachi, Shizuki | DPPs: amended complaint adds specific facts (e.g., AVX rep statements, meeting participation, corporate‑family participation) tying these defendants to the cartel | Defs: challenge lack of direct roster attendance, insufficient specific allegations as to particular entities or U.S. subsidiaries | Denied motions as to AVX, Holy Stone (both entities), HCA (for DPPs), and Shizuki Electric; factual allegations suffice under Twombly at pleading stage |
| ASC (American Shizuki Corp.) — subgroup subsidiary pleading | DPPs: seek leave to add facts from recent discovery tying ASC to cartel activities | ASC: complaint lacks substantive allegations naming ASC or connecting it to the cartel | ASC dismissal granted but with leave to amend limited to adding factual allegations against ASC |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury‑in‑fact, causation, redressability)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (jurisdictional standing is a threshold requirement and cannot be assumed)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (Article III standing must be demonstrated for each claim; standing is not granted in gross)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (generalized grievances do not satisfy Article III; statutory standing distinct from constitutional standing)
- Traffic‑School.com, Inc. v. Edriver Inc., 653 F.3d 820 (Ninth Circuit: standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (named plaintiffs must show they personally were injured; class status does not confer standing)
- In re Ditropan XL Antitrust Litig., 529 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (N.D. Cal. practice requiring in‑state purchase to plead Article III standing for state antitrust claims)