In Re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, 799 F. Supp. 2d 777

MDL proceeding in ND Ohio for direct and indirect purchaser antitrust claims concerning the flexible polyurethane foam market.
Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaints allege a conspiratorial price-fixing and customer-allocation agreement among Vitafoam and multiple foam manufacturers.
Court previously denied several motions to dismiss and held pleadings plausibly alleged an express agreement supported by Vitafoam admissions from DOJ/Canadian investigations.
Defendants challenged plausibility, concealment defenses, and standing to bring state-law consumer protection claims.
Court ordered focused discovery for certain named defendants and addressed various housekeeping issues including voluntary dismissals and a Urethane discovery dispute.
Unjust enrichment claims by Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs were dismissed; certain state consumer-protection claims (ID, PA, ME, HI, IL) survived.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pleading standard for antitrust conspiracy	Plaintiffs allege express agreement plus post-agreement conduct.	Pleadings are too conclusory under Twombly/Iqbal.	Plausible express agreement found; not merely conclusory.
Adequacy of Vitafoam admissions as direct evidence	Vitafoam admissions create a 'smoking gun' of conspiracy.	Admissions are insufficient or improperly attributed.	Admissions sufficiently support conspiracy allegations against named defendants.
State consumer protection claims by Indirect Purchasers	Logically antecedent standing or class certification should resolve multiple jurisdictions.	Standing lacking for non-resident states should bar claims.	Standing issues deferred to class certification; claims may proceed or be limited based on certification outcome.
Fraudulent concealment tolling	Pleadings show concealment and due diligence arguments satisfy tolling.	Concealment must be stated with specificity and diligence shown.	Fraudulent concealment adequately pled; tolling recognized under Pinney/Campbell framework.
Unjust enrichment viability and class certification	Unjust enrichment claims are appropriate for class treatment.	Individualized inquiries predominate; not suitable for class action.	Unjust enrichment claims dismissed; not suitable for class treatment.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading required; no bare conclusory allegations)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (two-step plausibility standard; factual allegations required)
In re Travel Agent Comm'n Antitrust Litig., 583 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2009) (beyond parallel conduct; circumstantial evidence must suggest conspiracy)
Watson Carpet & Floor Covering, Inc. v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 648 F.3d 452 (6th Cir. 2011) (express conspiratorial agreement can be proven directly; circumstantial route clarified)
In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., 723 F. Supp. 2d 987 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (plausibility requires more than parallel conduct; context matters)
In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litig., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (precedent on antitrust pleading standards)
Hinds County, Miss. v. Wachovia Bank N.A., 620 F. Supp. 2d 499 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (concerning fraudulent concealment standards)
Campbell v. Upjohn Co., 676 F.2d 1122 (6th Cir. 1982) (reasonable diligence in concealment context; hypothetical inquiry considerations)
Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179 (1997) (proof required for tolling due to concealment)
In re Travel Agent Comm'n Antitrust Litig. (second cite), 583 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2009) (reemphasizes notice requirements and need for plausible inference of agreement)