Animal Sci. Prod.s Inc. v. China Nat'l Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp.. ., No. Civ. 05-4376(GEB).
| Court | United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey |
| Writing for the Court | GARRETT E. BROWN, Jr., Chief Judge. |
| Citation | 702 F.Supp.2d 320 |
| Parties | ANIMAL SCIENCE PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHINA NATIONAL METALS & MINERALS IMPORT & EXPORT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 01 April 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ. 05-4376(GEB). |
702 F.Supp.2d 320
ANIMAL SCIENCE PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CHINA NATIONAL METALS & MINERALS IMPORT & EXPORT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
No. Civ. 05-4376(GEB).
United States District Court,D. New Jersey.
April 1, 2010.
702 F.Supp.2d 321
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
702 F.Supp.2d 322
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
702 F.Supp.2d 323
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
702 F.Supp.2d 324
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
702 F.Supp.2d 325
Robert A. Magnanini, Esq., Stone and Magnanini, LLP, Richard E. Donovan, Esq., Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, William A. Isaacson and Jennifer Milici, Esqs., Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, for Plaintiffs Animal Science Products, Inc., Resco Products, Inc. and a class of similarly situated. 1
Robert J. Del Tufo, Shepard Goldfein, Michael L. Weiner, Thomas Pak and Sean M. Tepe, Esqs., Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, for Defendants China Minmetals Corp. and China National Minerals Co., Ltd.
Donald A. Robinson and Leda Dunn Wettre, Esqs., Robinson, Wettre & Miller LLC, Nicholas L. Coch, Jonathan S. Kaplan, Timothy J. Helwick and Mark A. Baghdassarian, Esqs., Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, for Defendants Sinosteel Corp., Sinosteel Trading Co. and Liaoning Jiayi Metals & Minerals Co., Ltd.
+-----------------+ ¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦ +-----------------¦ +-----------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------+ ¦I. ¦Introduction ¦327¦ +----+--------------------------------------------------+---¦ +----+--------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦II. ¦Procedural Background ¦327¦ +----+--------------------------------------------------+---¦ +----+--------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦III.¦Factual Background ¦329¦ +----+--------------------------------------------------+---¦ +----+--------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦IV. ¦Distinction Between the Relevant Tests and Burdens¦330¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦A.¦Standard and Burden Associated with Jurisdictional Inquiry¦330¦ ++--+----------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦B.¦Standard Associated with Pleading Underlying Claims ¦332¦ ++--+----------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦C.¦Burden Associated with Asserting Abstention ¦334¦ +------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------+ +--+----------------------------+---¦ ¦V.¦Aspects Related to the FTAIA¦335¦ +-----------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦A.¦Subject Matter Jurisdiction under the Export Exception to the FTAIA ¦335¦ ¦¦ ¦Bar ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦¦1.¦Interplay Between the Sherman Act, FTAIA and Hartford Fire ¦335¦ +++--+--------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦2.¦Plaintiffs Fail to Provide Factual Proof Meeting the FTAIA Exception¦339¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦¦¦a.¦Paragraph One ¦339¦ ++++--+---------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦b.¦Paragraph Three ¦341¦ ++++--+---------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦c.¦Paragraph Twenty-Nine ¦341¦ ++++--+---------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦d.¦Paragraph Forty-Seven ¦341¦ ++++--+---------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦e.¦Paragraph Forty-Eight ¦344¦ ++++--+---------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦f.¦Paragraph Forty-Nine ¦345¦ ++++--+---------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦g.¦Paragraph Fifty ¦346¦ ++++--+---------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦h.¦Paragraph Fifty-One ¦346¦ ++++--+---------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦i.¦Paragraph Fifty-Five ¦347¦ ++++--+---------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦j.¦Paragraph Sixty-Five ¦349¦ ++++--+---------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦k.¦Paragraph Seventy-Two ¦361¦ ++++--+---------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦l.¦Paragraph Seventy-Five ¦362¦ ++++--+---------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦m.¦Amended Complaint Fails to Meet the FTAIA Exception¦362¦ +-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦B.¦Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the Introductory Clause of the ¦362¦ ¦¦ ¦FTAIA ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦¦1.¦Plaintiffs' Allegations ¦363¦ +++--+----------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦2.¦Claim That Defendants Effectively Acted as Importers¦364¦ +-------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦¦¦a.¦Plaintiffs' Legal Position ¦365¦ ++++--+------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦b.¦Coors Does Not Lend Support to Plaintiffs' Legal Position ¦367¦ ++++--+------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦c.¦Plaintiffs' Position Contradicts the Gist of the Third Circuit Law¦369¦ ++++--+------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦d.¦Sales to an American Intermediary or American End-Consumer ¦374¦ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦¦3.¦Plaintiffs' Factual Proof as to Defendants' Importer Status¦375¦ +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦¦¦a.¦Plaintiffs' Own Exhibits ¦375¦ ++++--+---------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦b.¦Discrepancies in Defendants' Statements¦376¦ ++++--+---------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦c.¦Defendants' Exhibits ¦377¦ +-------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------+ +---+---------------+---¦ ¦VI.¦Leave to Amend ¦378¦ +-----------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦A.¦General Rule ¦378¦ ++--+------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦B.¦Implications of Twombly, Iqbal and Factual Review Under Turicentro¦380¦ ++--+------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦C.¦Limited Leave to Amend Is in the Interests of Justice ¦382¦ ++--+------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦D.¦Prudential Considerations ¦384¦ +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------+ +----+-------------------------------+---¦ ¦VII.¦The FSIA and Abstention Aspects¦384¦ +----------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------+ ¦¦A.¦Standard of Review ¦385¦ ++--+-----------------------+---¦ ¦¦B.¦Applicable Legal Tests ¦385¦ +-------------------------------+
+----------------------------------+ ¦¦¦1.¦The FSIA ¦385¦ +++--+-------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦2.¦The Act of State Doctrine¦388¦ +++--+-------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦3.¦The Concept of Comity ¦389¦ +++--+-------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦4.¦Government Compulsion ¦391¦ +----------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦C.¦Parties' Relevant Exhibits and Factual Assertions¦394¦ +---------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------+ ¦¦¦1.¦Defendants' Moving Papers¦394¦ +++--+-------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦2.¦Plaintiffs' Opposition ¦397¦ +++--+-------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦3.¦Defendants' Reply ¦400¦ +----------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦D.¦Relevant Legal Proceedings and Evidence Submitted Therein¦401¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦¦1.¦Judicial Notice and the Concept of Stare Decisis¦401¦ +++--+------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦2.¦Antidumping and Countervailing Proceedings ¦403¦ +---------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦¦¦a.¦European Union Proceedings ¦405¦ ++++--+---------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦b.¦Proceedings Before the International Trade Administration¦409¦ +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------+ ¦¦¦3.¦Antitrust Proceedings ¦410¦ +-------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦¦¦a.¦Proceedings in the Western District of Pennsylvania¦410¦ ++++--+---------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦b.¦Vitamin C Proceedings ¦413¦ +-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦E.¦The FSIA Appears Relevant as to Some Defendants ¦418¦ ++--+-----------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦F.¦The Act of State Doctrine Does Not Warrant Abstention¦420¦ ++--+-----------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦G.¦Doctrine of Government Compulsion Appears Relevant ¦421¦ +-------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------+ ¦¦¦1.¦Preliminary Considerations¦421¦ +-----------------------------------+
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
19 cases
-
Thomas v. Adams, Civil Action Nos. 10–5026 DRD
...the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) ; see Animal Sci. Prods. v. China Nat'l Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Corp., 702 F.Supp.2d 320, 380–81 (D.N.J.2010) (addressing the effect of Twombly on a pleading filed during the Conley reign and citing Schiller v. Phys. Res. Group,......
-
Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., Civ. No. 2:05–cv–04376 KM.
...jurisdiction, and dismissed the Amended Complaint. See Animal Science Prods. Inc. v. China Nat'l Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Corp., 702 F.Supp.2d 320 (D.N.J.2010) ; ECF Nos. 112, 113. Plaintiffs appealed.Noting that it was overturning existing precedent, the United States Court of Appeals......
-
Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., Civ. No. 2:05–cv–04376 (KM).
...jurisdiction, and dismissed the Amended Complaint. See Animal Science Prods. Inc. v. China Nat'l Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Corp., 702 F.Supp.2d 320 (D.N.J.2010); ECF Nos. 112, 113. Plaintiffs appealed. Noting that it was overturning existing precedent, the United States Court of Appeals......
-
Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., Civ. No. 2:05-cv-04376 (KM)
...jurisdiction, and dismissed the Amended Complaint. See Animal Science Prods. Inc., v. China Nat'l Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Corp., 702 F. Supp. 2d 320 (D.N.J. 2010); ECF Nos. 112, 113. Plaintiffs appealed. Noting that it was overturning existing precedent, the United States Court of App......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
-
An Overseas Sea Change For U.S. Antitrust Laws? New Developments In The Interpretation Of The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act
...69 (3d Cir. 2000). Animal Science at 6 (citing Animal Science Prods., Inc. v. China Nat'l Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Corp., 702 F. Supp. 2d 320 (D.N.J. 2010)); see also Carpet Group, 227 F.3d at 65-70 (describing extensive evidentiary submissions, not all of which were credited, ......
4 books & journal articles
-
The International Scope of U.S. Antitrust
...industry before the World Trade Organization). But see Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Nat’l Metals & Minerals Import & Exp. Corp.,702 F. Supp. 2d 320 46 A Handbook on the Scope of Antitrust 4. Foreign Sovereign Compulsion Another exemption applies when a foreign government forces or requ......
-
Table of Cases
...Corp., 654 F.3d 462 (3d Cir. 2011), 35, 36, 38, 46, 364 Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Nat’l Metals & Minerals Import & Exp. Corp., 702 F. Supp. 2d 320 (D.N.J. 2010), 45, 46 Anonymous v. Kaye, 987 F. Supp. 131 (N.D.N.Y. 1998), 130 Anschutz Corp. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 785 F. Supp.......
-
ILLIBERAL LAW IN AMERICAN COURTS.
...2011) (interpreting Chinese export regulations); Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Nat'l Metals & Mineral Imp. & Exp. Corp., 702 F. Supp. 2d 320, 441-452 (D.N.J. 2010) (analyzing export-related working rules, notices, and measures issued by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce), vacated......
-
Foreign States’ Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Antitrust Cases
...as the litigation moves into higher courts. 149. Animal Science Products v. China Nat. Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp., 702 F. Supp. 2d 320 (D.N.J. 2010).150. Id. at 426.151. ‘‘It would be unseemly of this Court to claim that it could determine the scope or the goals of the [Chinese......