Liu v. Amerco
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9172
1st Cir.2012Background
- Liu filed a 2010 Massachusetts 93A claim alleging U‑Haul invited collusion and raised prices in two MA rentals during Sept 2006–Sept 2008.
- FTC investigation and public summary described Shoen directing rate hikes and urging Budget to follow; memoranda and emails documented implementation efforts.
- FTC concluded the conduct violated FTC Act §5 and sought injunctive relief; U‑Haul consented but did not admit wrongdoing.
- District court dismissed for failure to plead injury under 93A, though assumed injury could be actionable; court focused on lack of individual damages.
- Court noted CAFA jurisdiction may support federal jurisdiction based on minimal diversity and >$5M aggregate class damages; good faith class scope limited to MA rentals.
- Appellate court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Liu states a valid 93A claim for an attempted price fix | Liu argues unilateral invitations to collude and price increases harmed her and the class | U‑Haul contends no cognizable injury and no attempt to conspire under 93A | Yes; pleadings plausibly allege an unlawful attempt and potential harm under 93A |
| Whether Liu pled adequate damages injury under 93A | Complaint shows price increases and economic harm from alleged scheme | Injury not tied to specific transactions; general allegations insufficient | Yes; allegations of injury and potential damages plausibly stated at this stage |
| Whether CAFA provides subject-matter jurisdiction over the class action | Aggregate class damages likely exceed $5 million; minimal diversity exists | Diversity and damages uncertain; CAFA requirements not clearly satisfied | Yes; CAFA jurisdiction exists given minimal diversity and potential >$5M in aggregated claims |
Key Cases Cited
- FTC v. Brown Shoe Co., 384 U.S. 316 (1966) (unilateral actions under §5 can violate the FTC Act)
- In re TJX Cos. Retail Sec. Breach Litig., 564 F.3d 489 (1st Cir. 2009) (guides 93A analysis; consumer injury framework cited)
- Ciardi v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., 436 Mass. 53, 762 N.E.2d 303 (Mass. 2002) (Mass. 93A interpretation linked to FTC precedents)
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O‑Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477 (1977) (harm from attempted anticompetitive conduct within reach of 93A/FTC policy)
- Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328 (1990) (price-related harm within 93A/FTC framework)
- Theatre Enters., Inc. v. Paramount Film Distrib. Corp., 346 U.S. 537 (1954) (distinguishes between pure parallel pricing and express proposals to raise prices)
- Rule v. Fort Dodge Animal Health, Inc., 607 F.3d 250 (1st Cir. 2010) (disclosure case; distinguishes latent risk vs. direct price harm)
- Hershenow v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., 445 Mass. 790, 840 N.E.2d 526 (Mass. 2006) (necessity of causation/damages in 93A claims)
- Penalbert-Rosa v. Fortuño-Burset, 631 F.3d 592 (1st Cir. 2011) (pleading standards for plausibility in 93A/antitrust claims)