In Re Class 8 Transmission Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 679 F. App'x 135

Background

Plaintiffs (indirect purchasers) sued four Class 8 truck manufacturers and Eaton, alleging a conspiracy in which manufacturers entered long-term rebate arrangements with Eaton that foreclosed rival ZF Meritor and kept Eaton’s transmissions prices supra-competitive.
Plaintiffs sought certification of a multi-state indirect-purchaser class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), alleging class-wide impact via an overcharge passed through from Eaton → manufacturers → direct purchasers → indirect purchasers.
Plaintiffs’ class-wide proof relied primarily on economist Dr. Russell Lamb’s three regressions: overcharge, direct pass-through, and indirect pass-through.
The District Court denied class certification, finding plaintiffs failed Rule 23(b)(3) predominance because Dr. Lamb’s analyses used limited and selectively excluded data and could not reliably prove class-wide impact given the market’s customization and distribution complexities.
The District Court then dismissed the entire action for lack of Article III case-or-controversy because the class was not certified; the Third Circuit affirmed denial of certification but vacated dismissal of plaintiffs’ individual claims and remanded for further proceedings on those claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether common questions predominate under Rule 23(b)(3) for an indirect-purchaser antitrust class	Lamb’s regressions show overcharge and class-wide pass-through; a rigorous analysis supports certification	Market is highly customized; Lamb’s data exclusions and limited sample prevent reliable class-wide proof	Predominance not met; denial of class certification affirmed
Whether Dr. Lamb’s exclusion of significant sales data fatally undermines class-wide proof	Exclusions are explainable and a revised rebuttal report supplements data	Exclusions left out nearly half of relevant sales and major manufacturers, undermining generalizability	Court properly discounted the analyses; exclusions supported denial of predominance
Whether market “real-world” factors (customization, distribution incentives) are irrelevant because they exist in both actual and but-for worlds	These factors are common and cancel out; they should not defeat class proof	These factors are individualized and affect pass-through and injury, defeating predominance	District Court permissibly considered these individualized market factors in the predominance analysis
Whether the District Court could dismiss plaintiffs’ individual claims after denying class certification	Plaintiffs brought claims on their own behalf as well as for the class; individual claims remain viable	Without a representative class, no live controversy for class claims; court argued lack of representation made case nonjusticiable	Dismissal of the entire action was error; individual claims survive and remand required

Key Cases Cited

Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (class predominance and use of common evidence)
In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305 (rigorous analysis at certification)
In re K-Dur Antitrust Litig., 686 F.3d 197 (Rule 23(b)(3) prerequisites and predominance)
Neale v. Volvo Cars of N. Am., LLC, 794 F.3d 353 (abuse-of-discretion standard for class certification)
Harnish v. Widener Univ. Sch. of Law, 833 F.3d 298 (need to assess whether class-wide evidence will suffice to prevail)
In re Modafinil Antitrust Litig., 837 F.3d 238 (impact as an element that may require individualized proof)
Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S. Ct. 1017 (case-or-controversy / mootness principles)
ZF Meritor, LLC v. Eaton Corp., 696 F.3d 254 (background antitrust litigation between Eaton and ZF Meritor)