In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37491
E.D. Pa.2013Background
- Multidistrict egg-industry antitrust case; Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (IPPs) sue egg producers and trade groups alleging conspiracy to restrict egg supply.
- IPPs’ Third and Fourth Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaints (IPFAC) targeted 41 state-law claims across 21 jurisdictions; defendants moved to dismiss damages claims barred by statutes of limitations.
- Court previously incorporated standards from In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig; Erie doctrine applied to state-law claims; Rule 8, 9(b), 12(b)(6) standards discussed.
- Court addresses tolling under discovery rules and fraudulent-concealment doctrines, with a relaxed Rule 9(b) standard for these state-law tolling theories.
- Court also analyzes Minnesota continuing-violation damages, Wisconsin unjust-enrichment limitations, and leave-to-amend considerations regarding tolling allegations.
- Final decision grants the motion to dismiss the IPFAC with prejudice as to time-barred damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IPFAC plausibly pleads discovery-rule tolling for 16 states | IPFAC alleges discovery-like tolling in multiple states | Discovery rules toll only to discovery of injury; no tolling dates alleged | Dismissed for lack of tolling dates; no plausible discovery-date allegations |
| Whether IPFAC plausibly pleads fraudulent-concealment tolling | Fraudulent concealment tolls until discovery; tolling dates needed | Rule 9(b) requirements and discovery-date need not be pleaded in detail | Dismissed; no tolling dates alleged; fraudulent-concealment claims barred outside discovery period |
| Minnesota continuing-violation damages timing | Continuing-violation language allows damages for entire period | Damages limited to period before limitations; no back-dating | Minnesota four-year statute applies; damages limited to timely period |
| Wisconsin unjust enrichment statute-of-limitations | Unjust enrichment tolls; debate on laches vs. six-year SOL | Unjust-enrichment treated as quasi-contract; six-year SOL applies | Wisconsin SOL applies; damages accrued before 12/2/2002 barred |
| Leave to amend after multiple amendments | Plaintiffs needed one more opportunity to plead tolling | Undue delay; previous amendments already provided opportunities | Denied; no further amendment permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 797 (Cal. 2005) (discovery rule requires time and manner of discovery to be pled)
- Forbes v. Eagleson, 228 F.3d 471 (3d Cir. 2000) (tolling when discovery of facts should occur)
- Summerhill v. Terminix, Inc., 637 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2011) (fraudulent-concealment tolling requires tolling-date pleading)
- In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig., 851 F.Supp.2d 867 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (court’s earlier framework and Erie principles applied to tolling)
- Spence v. ESAB Grp., Inc., 623 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2010) (state-law tolling analysis under Erie requires application of governing state's law)
- Alakayak v. B.C. Packers, Ltd., 48 P.3d 432 (Alaska 2002) (continuing-violation language governs accrual, not back-damages)
- Anzai v. Chevron Corp., 168 F.Supp.2d 1180 (D. Haw. 2001) (continuing-violation accrual; damages limited to limitations period)
- Lorix v. Crompton Corp., 736 N.W.2d 619 (Minn. 2007) (Minnesota antitrust law interpreted consistently with federal law)
- Boldt v. State, 101 Wis.2d 566, 305 N.W.2d 133 (Wis. 1981) (unjust enrichment treated as quasi-contract; six-year SOL)