In Re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litigation
779 F. Supp. 2d 642
E.D. Mich.2011Background
- This MDL involves indirect and direct purchasers in the packaged ice antitrust litigation; this Opinion addresses the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' ACAC and motions to dismiss.
- IP Plaintiffs allege a nationwide Sherman Act conspiracy among Reddy Ice, Arctic Glacier, and Home City to allocate customers/territories and to restrain price competition.
- IP Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, treble damages where permitted, damages under 30 state statutes, disgorgement, and class certification under Rule 23.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and, for some, under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction; the DOJ probe into the industry is noted but not dispositive.
- The Court must determine standing to sue under states where no named plaintiff resides, plausibility of nationwide conspiracy under Twombly, effects of Shady Grove on class actions, and the viability of various state-law claims.
- The Court ultimately grants in part and denies in part defendants’ motions, including dismissal of many out-of-state and certain state-law claims, while allowing some claims to proceed and deferring others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue in non-resident states | IP Plaintiffs argue class standing permits claims in 26 states where no named plaintiff resides. | Defendants contend lack of Article III standing for out-of-state claims by named plaintiffs. | Named plaintiffs lack standing for states where they do not reside. |
| Plausibility of nationwide conspiracy | IP Plaintiffs allege a nationwide conspiracy plausibly pled under Twombly/Iqbal. | Defendants argue no plausible nationwide conspiracy after DOJ investigation ended without indictments. | Court finds a plausible nationwide conspiracy pleadings sufficient to survive dismissal. |
| Shady Grove effect on class-action bars | Shady Grove allows federal class actions despite state prohibitions; NY bar is not controlling. | Defendants maintain New York § 901(b) precludes a Donnelly Act class action. | New York Donnelly Act class action allowed; Shady Grove analysis preserves federalclass action despite state bar. |
| Viability of California, Michigan, New York state-law claims | IP Plaintiffs have standing to pursue Cartwright Act (CA), MARA (MI), and Donnelly Act (NY) claims; claims should proceed where standing exists. | Defendants challenge Twombly pleading and statutes of limitations; many out-of-state claims are dismissed for lack of standing. | Cartwright Act (CA), MARA (MI), and Donnelly Act (NY) claims survive to plead; other state-law claims dismissed for lack of standing. |
| Injunctive relief viability at pleading stage | IP Plaintiffs allege continuing harm and ongoing opportunities to conspire; injunctive relief should not be dismissed. | Past conduct and plea agreements limit potential ongoing threats; movants seek dismissal of injunctive relief. | Injunctive relief claim survives at pleading stage; continuing harm not limited by plea agreements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausibility, not mere possibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (facially plausible claims required; thread of facts needed)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1996) (standing requires personal injury; cannot rely on others' injuries)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1975) (standing as threshold requirement)
- Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (U.S. 1999) (logically antecedent questions; class certification context)
- Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (class actions and standing interplay in settlements)
- In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litig., 756 F. Supp. 2d 670 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (standing issues before/after class certification in complex actions)
- In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig., 602 F. Supp. 2d 538 (M.D. Pa. 2009) (Ortiz/Amchem considerations in class-action pleading)
- Sheet Metal Workers Nat’l Health Fund v. Amgen, Inc., 2008 WL 3833577 (D.N.J. 2008) (intra-state effects and pleading requirements in antitrust actions)
- In re SRAM Antitrust Litig., 2010 WL 3069329 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (class-action considerations and pleading standards)