Ortiz v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. (In Re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig.), 893 F.3d 1047

Background

Ferrellgas (Blue Rhino) and AmeriGas are major sellers of pre-filled 20‑lb propane exchange tanks; in 2008 they reduced fill from 17 to 15 lbs but kept prices the same.
Earlier lawsuits (collectively “Propane I”) and an FTC enforcement action (resolved by consent orders in Jan. 2015) addressed alleged conspiracy to inflate tank prices; some plaintiffs settled.
Ortiz and Orr are later indirect‑purchaser class actions seeking (a) injunctive relief to prohibit coordinating conduct and restore 17‑lb fills and (b) disgorgement and state‑law damages for overcharges.
The district court dismissed federal injunctive claims for lack of standing (and laches), dismissed federal disgorgement as time‑barred, and granted summary judgment that a prior release barred certain state‑law claims; the court also concluded new purchases did not restart the limitations period (a ruling later implicated by this court’s Propane En Banc decision).
On appeal the Eighth Circuit: affirmed dismissal of federal injunctive and disgorgement claims (holding indirect purchasers lack standing for injunctive relief and cannot seek disgorgement under federal law due to Illinois Brick); remanded the state‑law damages claims to the district court to decide whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing for federal injunctive relief	Continued sale of 15‑lb tanks at unchanged price is an ongoing injury warranting injunction	Plaintiffs fail to plead current or imminent threat; FTC consent orders already provide relief	Plaintiffs lack standing; their allegations are insufficiently particularized and plausibly pleaded to show ongoing conspiracy or cognizable danger of recurrent violation
Whether FTC consent orders preclude private injunctive relief	Private relief still needed because FTC orders may be weak or unenforced; discovery could reveal violations	FTC orders already prohibit the challenged conduct (price fixing, info exchange, fill‑level coordination) and provide substantially the same relief	Private injunctive relief not warranted absent plausible factual allegations of recurrent violations beyond the FTC orders; plaintiffs did not meet Borden/Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard
Disgorgement under federal antitrust law	Disgorgement is equitable so laches, not the statute of limitations, should govern; indirect purchasers seek restitution of ill‑gotten gains	Allowing disgorgement by indirect purchasers would circumvent Illinois Brick and risk duplicative liability	Disgorgement by indirect purchasers is barred as an improper end‑run around Illinois Brick; plaintiffs cannot recover federal disgorgement remedies
State‑law damages (timeliness / jurisdiction)	Propane En Banc’s rule that each sale restarts limitations makes state claims timely for new purchasers	Prior rulings and releases bar some subclass claims; federal court may dismiss supplemental state claims	Court remands to district court to decide (under §1367(c)) whether to keep or remand state‑law claims; if retained, district court should assess timeliness under Propane En Banc

Key Cases Cited

Pre‑Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig., 860 F.3d 1059 (8th Cir. en banc 2017) (each resale in a continuing price‑fixing conspiracy can toll/restart limitations)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain factual content to state a plausible claim)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (antitrust complaints require factual enhancement beyond conclusory allegations)
Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) (indirect purchasers cannot recover federal antitrust damages)
FTC v. Bronson Partners, LLC, 654 F.3d 359 (2d Cir. 2011) (disgorgement as equitable relief described and analyzed)
Borden Co. v. United States, 347 U.S. 514 (1954) (private injunctions may be cumulative to government relief; plaintiff must show cognizable danger of recurrent violation)
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (standing requires imminent and concrete injury likely redressable)
Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (1975) (actual controversy must exist throughout litigation)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts have only constitutionally and statutorily granted jurisdiction; supplemental jurisdiction limits)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005) (scope of supplemental jurisdiction)
Lapides v. Board of Regents, 535 U.S. 613 (2002) (district courts may remand state law claims once federal claims are dismissed)