In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation
856 F. Supp. 2d 1103
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Consolidated class action by salaried employees against multiple California high-tech firms in SF/Silicon Valley alleging antitrust conspiracy to suppress wages and mobility.
- CAC alleges six bilateral Do Not Cold Call agreements among defendants; senior executives allegedly negotiated, enforced, and concealed terms.
- DOJ investigated 2009–2010; found facially anticompetitive agreements; DOJ filed complaints and final judgments enjoining related conduct.
- Proceedings: five state actions removed to ND Cal; CAC filed Sept 13, 2011; motions to dismiss Oct 2011; hearings Jan 26, 2012.
- Plaintiffs seek federal and California antitrust relief, UCL restitution, and pre-judgment interest; injunctive/declaratory relief prayer withdrawn; Lucasfilm challenge under federal enclave doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of overarching conspiracy pleadings | CAC details actors, effect, timing | Only parallel conduct; six bilaterals insufficient | Not dismissed; plausible unity of purpose shown |
| Plausibility and market-power requirements | Market power in skilled labor; ripple effects from six agreements | No need for market power at this stage; implausibility argued | Survives as per se claim; market-power analysis deferred |
| Antitrust injury standing | Employees directly harmed; injury in labor market, within the restraint | Argued lack of antitrust injury | Antitrust injury adequately pled |
| UCL claim viability | Restitution available for unjust enrichment; seeks disgorgement | No restitution/gr disgorgement available; injury not vested | UCL claim DISMISSED as moot/unsupported |
| Lucasfilm federal enclave defense impact | Cartwright Act claims may extend beyond enclave | Enclave bars state-law claims arising on Presidio | Denied as to dismissal; enclave defense addressed later at class-certification stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir.2008) (parallel conduct alone insufficient; need 'who, what, where, when')
- Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (1984) (unity of purpose inferred from conduct; concerted action may be inferred)
- In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litig., 738 F.Supp.2d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (distinguishes Kendall; details greater factual pleading allowed)
- Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Solution, 513 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) (market-definition pleading not required at rule 12(b)(6) stage)
- Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Supron Energy Corp., 728 F.2d 1555 (10th Cir.1984) (overlapping board membership may indicate opportunity to conspire)