Miami Prods. & Chem. Co. v. Olin Corp.

• Citation: 546 F.Supp.3d 223
• Decision Date: 24 June 2021
• Docket Number: 1:19-CV-00385 EAW, 1:19-CV-00975 EAW, 1:19-CV-00990 EAW
• Parties: MIAMI PRODUCTS & CHEMICAL CO., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. The Tripp Plating Works, Inc., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Olin Corporation, et al., Defendants. Precious Plate, Inc., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Olin Corporation, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

546 F.Supp.3d 223

MIAMI PRODUCTS & CHEMICAL CO., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

The Tripp Plating Works, Inc., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Olin Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Precious Plate, Inc., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Olin Corporation, et al., Defendants.

1:19-CV-00385 EAW, 1:19-CV-00975 EAW, 1:19-CV-00990 EAW

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

Signed June 24, 2021

C. Andrew Dirksen, Pro Hac Vice, Cera LLP, Boston, MA, Jason S. Hartley, Pro Hac Vice, Hartley LLP, San Diego, CA, Joseph Michael Vanek, Pro Hac Vice, Sperling & Slater, P.C., Chicago, IL, Marco Cercone, Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf & Cunningham, LLC, Buffalo, NY, Pamela A. Markert, Pro Hac Vice, Solomon B. Cera, Pro Hac Vice, Cera LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff Miami Products & Chemical Co.

Arthur Nash Bailey, Rupp Baase Pfalzgraf Cunningham, LLC, Jamestown, NY, Elana Katcher, Jeffrey P. Campisi, Matthew P. McCahill, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, New York, NY, Gary L. Specks, Pro Hac Vice, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, Wheeling, IL, Jason S. Hartley, Pro Hac Vice, Hartley LLP, San Diego, CA, Joseph Michael Vanek, Pro Hac Vice, Sperling & Slater, P.C., Chicago, IL, Marco Cercone, R. Anthony Rupp, III, Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf, Cunningham & Coppola LLC, Buffalo, NY, Pamela A. Markert, Pro Hac Vice, Cera LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff Amrex Chemical Co., Inc.

Jason S. Hartley, Pro Hac Vice, Hartley LLP, San Diego, CA, Joseph Michael Vanek, Pro Hac Vice, Sperling & Slater, P.C., Chicago, IL, Marco Cercone, R. Anthony Rupp, III, Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf, Cunningham & Coppola LLC, Buffalo, NY, Pamela A. Markert, Pro Hac Vice, Cera LLP, San Francisco, CA, Amanda Klevorn, Burns Charest LLP, New Orleans, LA, Joseph E. Mariotti, Shawn P. Quinnan, Caputo & Mariotti, P.C., Moosic, PA, Linda P. Nussbaum, Pro Hac Vice, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., New York, NY, Mallory Biblo, Warren T. Burns, Burns Charest LLP, Dallas, TX, Marc H. Edelson, Edelson & Associates, LLC, Newtown, PA, for Plaintiff Main Pool and Chemical Co., Inc.

Arthur Nash Bailey, Rupp Baase Pfalzgraf Cunningham, LLC, Jamestown, NY, Douglas A. Abrahams, Pro Hac Vice, Joseph C. Kohn, Pro Hac Vice, Robert J. LaRocca, William E. Hoese, Pro Hac Vice, Kohn Swift & Graf P.C., Joshua H. Grabar, Pro Hac Vice, Grabar Law Office, Philadelphia, PA, Jason S. Hartley, Pro Hac Vice, Hartley LLP, San Diego, CA, Joseph Michael Vanek, Pro Hac Vice, Sperling & Slater, P.C., Chicago, IL, Marco Cercone, R. Anthony Rupp, III, Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf, Cunningham & Coppola LLC, Buffalo, NY, Pamela A. Markert, Pro Hac Vice, Cera LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC.

Arthur Nash Bailey, Rupp Baase Pfalzgraf Cunningham, LLC, Jamestown, NY, Jason S. Hartley, Pro Hac Vice, Hartley LLP, San Diego, CA, Joseph Michael Vanek, Pro Hac Vice, Sperling & Slater, P.C., Chicago, IL, Marco Cercone, R. Anthony Rupp, III, Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf, Cunningham & Coppola LLC, Buffalo, NY, Pamela A. Markert, Pro Hac Vice, Cera LLP, San Francisco, CA, Vincent J. Esades, Pro Hac Vice, Heins Mills & Olson, PLC, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff Perry's Ice Cream Company, Inc.

Jason S. Hartley, Pro Hac Vice, Hartley LLP, San Diego, CA, Joseph Michael Vanek, Pro Hac Vice, Sperling & Slater, P.C., Chicago, IL, Marco Cercone, Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf & Cunningham, LLC, Buffalo, NY, Pamela A. Markert, Pro Hac Vice, Cera LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff Vandemark Chemical, Inc.

Ryan L. Gellman, Colucci & Gallaher, P.C., Buffalo, NY, Chad B. Holtzman, Pro Hac Vice, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Wilmington, DE, Ellen Meriwether, Pro Hac Vice, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Media, PA, Jennifer W. Sprengel, Pro Hac Vice, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Chicago, IL, Kaitlin Naughton, Pro Hac Vice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff The Tripp Plating Works, Inc.

Kaitlin Naughton, Pro Hac Vice, Washington, DC, Ryan L. Gellman, Colucci & Gallaher, P.C., Buffalo, NY, Ellen Meriwether, Pro Hac Vice, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Media, PA, Jennifer W. Sprengel, Pro Hac Vice, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff Precious Plate, Inc.

Stephen A. Sharkey, Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Buffalo, NY, Caroline Lytton Jones, Pro Hac Vice, Jeffrey Stephen Oliver, Pro Hac Vice, Joseph Allen Ostoyich, Pro Hac Vice, Paul Christopher Cuomo, Pro Hac Vice, William Connor Lavery, Pro Hac Vice, Baker Botts LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants Olin Corporation, K.A. Steel Chemicals, Inc.

Brian P. Crosby, Melissa M. Morton, Timothy J. Graber, Gibson, McAskill & Crosby, LLP, Buffalo, NY, Steven E. Bizar, Forrest E. Lovett, Pro Hac Vice, George G. Gordon, Pro Hac Vice, John P. McClam, Pro Hac Vice, Julia E. Chapman, Pro Hac Vice, Dechert LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Lauren A. Bowman, Pro Hac Vice, Dechert LLP, London, UK, Peter Stone Larson, Pro Hac Vice, Dechert LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant Occidental Chemical Corporation.

James T. Southwick, Abigail C. Noebels, Pro Hac Vice, Burton Solomon DeWitt, Pro Hac Vice, Elizabeth B. Hadaway, Pro Hac Vice, William R.H. Merrill, Pro Hac Vice, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX, Terrance P. Flynn, Harris Beach LLP, Buffalo, NY, for Defendant Westlake Chemical Corporation.

Brooke J. Oppenheimer, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, Hartford, CT, Daniel S. Bitton, Angela M. Farren, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, San Fransisco, CA, Evan R. Johnson, John D. Briggs, Richard B. Dagen, Steven C. Lavender, James L. Moore, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, Washington, DC, Randall David White, Andrew M. Debbins, Connors LLP, Buffalo, NY, for Defendant Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd.

Andrew M. Debbins, Randall David White, Connors LLP, Buffalo, NY, Angela M. Farren, Pro Hac Vice, Daniel S. Bitton, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, San Fransisco, CA, Brooke J. Oppenheimer, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, Hartford, CT, Evan R. Johnson, John D. Briggs, Pro Hac Vice, Richard B. Dagen, Steven C. Lavender, Pro Hac Vice, James L. Moore, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant Shintech Incorporated.

Alan M. Unger, John Joseph LaVelle, Peter J. Mardian, Tom A. Paskowitz, Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants Formosa Plastics Corporation, Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A.

DECISION AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs The Tripp Plating Works, Inc. ("Tripp") and Precious Plate, Inc. ("Precious Plate") (collectively the "Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs") bring these putative class actions against defendants Olin Corporation, K.A. Steel Chemicals, Inc., Occidental Chemical Corporation, Westlake Chemical Corporation, Shintech Incorporated, and Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging an anticompetitive conspiracy by Defendants to fix the price of caustic soda in the United States. (Dkt. 129)¹ .

Presently before the Court is a motion filed by Defendants seeking dismissal of the following claims asserted by the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs: (1) consumer protection claims asserted under the laws of various states, as set forth more specifically below; (2) antitrust claims asserted under the laws of various states, as set forth more specifically below; and (3) unjust enrichment claims asserted under the laws of various states, as set forth more specifically below. (Dkt. 174)² . For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

As noted above, the instant actions relate to a purported anticompetitive conspiracy by Defendants to fix the price of caustic soda in the United States. (Dkt. 129). The details of the alleged conspiracy are set forth at length in this Court's Decision and Order dated March 27, 2020, resolving several prior motions to dismiss (Dkt. 119), familiarity with which is assumed for purposes of this Decision and Order. The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs are New York corporations that "indirectly purchased Caustic Soda manufactured by one or more of the Defendants" during the relevant time period. (Dkt. 129 at ¶¶ 18-19).

II. Procedural Background

The Lead Action was filed on March 22, 2019 (Dkt. 1), and reassigned to the undersigned on May 8, 2019 (Dkt. 40). The Lead Action and various related putative class actions brought by direct purchasers of caustic soda were referred for the handling of non-dispositive pretrial matters to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer (Dkt. 42), who entered a scheduling and case management order on May 17, 2019, consolidating the cases for pretrial purposes (Dkt. 49).

Tripp commenced its putative class action on July 25, 2019. (Civil Action No. 19-cv-00785 (the "Tripp Action"), Dkt. 1). Precious Plate commenced its putative class action on July 29, 2019. (Civil Action No. 19-cv-00990 (the "Precious Plate Action"), Dkt. 1). Both matters were referred to Judge Roemer for the handling of non-dispositive pretrial matters. (Tripp Action, Dkt. 8; Precious Plate Action, Dkt. 6). On September 19, 2019, Judge Roemer entered a Case Management Order (Tripp Action, Dkt. 11; Precious Plate Action, Dkt. 10) consolidating the Tripp Action and the Precious Plate Action into the Lead Action.

The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on April 16, 2020. (Dkt. 129) (the "indirect purchaser complaint"). Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss on May 28, 2020. (Dkt. 174). The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs filed their response on July 13, 2020 (Dkt. 195), and Defendants filed their reply on August 12, 2020 (Dkt. 202).

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

"In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a district court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached to the complaint as exhibits,...