281 F.Supp.3d 892
N.D. Cal.2017Background
- This is a consolidated antitrust action (In re Korean Ramen Antitrust Litigation) against Nongshim and Ottogi (and their U.S. subsidiaries) alleging a Korea-based conspiracy to fix ramen prices that was concealed from purchasers.
- Plaintiffs allege the conspiracy began around 2000–2001 (Representative/RTOA meetings), involved information exchanges and coordinated price increases in Korea from 2001–2010, and exported price effects to U.S. sales (both imported and some U.S.-manufactured products).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing (inter alia) statutes of limitations, international comity based on a Korean Supreme Court decision overturning KFTC findings, lack of evidence of a Korea-to-U.S. linkage (impact/proximate cause), and insufficiency of certain expert and documentary evidence.
- The court found disputed material facts on key issues (existence of conspiracy in Korea; fraudulent concealment tolling; linkage/impact in the U.S.; subsidiary control), denied summary judgment, and preserved state-law claims.
- The court also denied defendants’ motion to exclude expert Stephan Haggard (chaebol/control opinions) but struck several late-disclosed Ottogi declarations/witness statements for nondisclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations (Sherman Act & state claims) | Discovery rule and fraudulent concealment tolled limitations; affirmative concealment acts (pretextual public statements, destroyed/altered documents, clandestine communications). | Discovery rule inapplicable; plaintiffs fail to show affirmative acts sufficient to toll. | Fraudulent concealment (based on affirmative acts viewed cumulatively) raises triable issues; summary judgment denied. State claims likewise not time-barred. |
| International comity / deference to Korean Supreme Court | U.S. courts may still adjudicate domestic injuries caused by foreign conduct; Korean decision does not bind U.S. analysis of U.S. injuries. | Comity requires deference to Korean Supreme Court’s reversal of KFTC findings and recognition of government role in pricing. | Comity does not require deferring to the Korean Supreme Court here; triable issues remain whether conspiracy impacted U.S. purchasers. |
| Existence of conspiracy in Korea (direct/corroborating evidence) | Samyang witness testimony, SHD documents, economic analyses, and evidence of information exchanges corroborate a conspiracy. | Samyang testimony is hearsay/speculative; documents unauthenticated; conduct consistent with lawful parallelism or government-led price practices. | Evidence (when viewed favorably to plaintiffs) suffices to create genuine disputes of material fact; summary judgment denied on conspiracy in Korea. |
| Impact/linkage to U.S. market & subsidiaries (NSA, Ottogi America) | Parent-subsidiary control, shared personnel, documents tying export/pricing, and expert econometrics support impact on U.S. prices (including some U.S.-produced products). | No direct evidence conspirators aimed at U.S. products; U.S. subsidiaries set prices independently; correlations explained by cost changes or voluntary matching. | Material disputes about linkage, control, and causation exist; summary judgment denied (insufficient basis to remove U.S.-produced products or dismiss subsidiaries at this stage). |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (drawing inferences and requirement of affirmative evidence to defeat summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (limits on inferences of conspiracy from ambiguous evidence)
- In re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir.) (defendant may rebut conspiracy inference by plausible procompetitive explanations)
- Oliver v. SD-3C LLC, 751 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.) (each conspirator sale is a new overt act for limitations purposes)
- F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155 (application of U.S. antitrust law to foreign conduct tied to domestic injury)
- In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 546 F.3d 981 (9th Cir.) (standards for showing linkage/proximate cause between conduct in one market and injury in another)