In re Resistors Antitrust Litigation, 3:15-cv-03820

Background

Consolidated antitrust class action alleging a price‑fixing conspiracy in the linear resistor industry beginning in 2003; two plaintiff groups: Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) and Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (IPPs).
DPPs allege a single Sherman Act §1 claim for damages; IPPs allege a Sherman Act §1 claim (injunctive relief only), multiple state antitrust claims, and state consumer protection claims.
Complaints name five corporate families; several U.S. subsidiary defendants moved separately to be dismissed for lack of specific allegations tying them to the conspiracy.
DPPs relied on meeting minutes, emails, JEITA committee activity, and alleged concealment (code words, warnings not to forward emails) to plead a conspiracy continuing into the limitations period.
IPPs’ pleading contained stronger pre‑2009 allegations but a factual gap from 2009–2013, leaving only a 2013 JEITA note alleged within the limitations period.
Court resolved motions to dismiss: denied joint motion as to DPPs (but granted subsidiary dismissals with leave to amend); granted joint motion as to IPPs with leave to amend; set common amendment deadline.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DPPs plausibly alleged a conspiracy continuing into the limitations period	DPPs argue detailed allegations (meetings, emails, JEITA exchanges) support a 2003–2014 conspiracy and tolling via fraudulent concealment	Defendants argue allegations are insufficient for an 11‑year conspiracy and fraudulent concealment not adequately pleaded	Court: DPPs meet Twombly plausibility standard; fraudulent concealment sufficiently alleged; joint motion denied for DPPs
Whether IPPs plausibly alleged a conspiracy reaching the limitations period	IPPs point to similar meeting minutes and communications, including items into 2013	Defendants argue a gap (2009–2013) means no plausible continuing conspiracy in limitations window	Court: IPP allegations insufficient (only a 2013 paragraph in period); joint motion granted with leave to amend
Whether plaintiffs adequately pleaded fraudulent concealment / due diligence tolling	Plaintiffs assert concealment (warnings to not forward, code words, non‑distribution of minutes) prevented discovery until enforcement actions became public	Defendants contend plaintiffs failed to plead due diligence and particularized concealment	Court: Particularized allegations of affirmative concealment are sufficient at pleading stage; due diligence requirement not fatal here
Whether U.S. subsidiary defendants are adequately alleged to have participated	Plaintiffs treat corporate families as including subsidiaries implicitly and say references to family names include U.S. affiliates	Subsidiaries argue complaint lacks specific allegations tying each U.S. subsidiary to the conspiracy	Court: Several U.S. subsidiaries dismissed from DPP complaint for failure to be included in defined corporate‑family terms; plaintiffs given leave to amend with specific allegations; similar subsidiary challenges likely would succeed for IPPs if repleaded

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for anti‑trust conspiracy requires allegations that cross the line from conceivable to plausible)
Conmar Corp. v. Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc., 858 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1988) (standards for tolling by fraudulent concealment and the role of due diligence)
In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig., 106 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (district court guidance on pleading antitrust conspiracies and treatment of corporate family allegations)
In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig., 154 F. Supp. 3d 918 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (further discussion of when allegations can be imputed across corporate families)