In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig.
Decision Date | 14 March 2017 |
Docket Number | Case No.: 15–MD–2670 JLS (MDD) |
Citation | 242 F.Supp.3d 1033 |
Parties | IN RE: PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' REMAINING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Presently before the Court are:
In 2015, dozens of actions were instituted in federal district courts across the nation seeking various forms of relief relying on the same factual predicate: an alleged antitrust conspiracy, in violation of the Sherman Act and state antitrust law, regarding packaged seafood products.See generally Transfer Order (ECF No. 1).On December 9, 2015 the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized pretrial proceedings ("In re Packaged Seafoods ") to this Court in the Southern District of California.(Id. at 1–2().)
Several weeks later, the United States Government intervened in the action, noting that "[a] federal grand jury empanelled in the Northern District of California is investigating potential violations of the Sherman Act,15 U.S.C. § 1, in the packaged seafood industry."(U.S. Notice of Mot. to Intervene 1, ECF No. 34.)The Court subsequently held several status conferences, (ECF Nos. 43, 108), appointed interim lead counsel, and set the leadership structure for purposes of pretrial proceedings, (ECF No. 119).In so doing, the Court divided the Plaintiffs into four groups:
(Order Appointing Interim Lead Counsel 1–2, ECF No. 119.)
Several months later, Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the United States entered into a joint stipulation regarding a limited stay of discovery, in effect until December 31, 2016, (Joint Stipulation re: Limited Stay of Discovery 1–3, ECF No. 130), which the Court approved, (ECF No. 137).Despite this limited stay, both Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed to the filing of amended complaints and motions to dismiss.(ECF Nos. 138, 142.)On November 21, 2016, Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the United States entered into a second joint stipulation regarding a limited stay of discovery, in effect for many factual matters until March 31, 2017, and in effect for all party depositions until September 30, 2017.(Joint Stipulation re: Second Limited Stay of Discovery 1–3, ECF No. 256.)The Court and the parties conferred at a November 29, 2016 Status Conference, (ECF Nos. 257, 262), and decided to bifurcate oral argument on the Motions to Dismiss according to the classification of "federal" versus "state" issues.The federal issues—which were the subject of the Court's first Order, (ECF No. 283)—encompassed (1) the sufficiency of all relevant Plaintiffs' allegations under the Sherman Act for monetary damages; (2) the sufficiency of all relevant Plaintiffs' allegations under the Sherman Act for injunctive relief; (3) all relevant Plaintiffs' standing to prosecute non-tuna claims; and (4) all statute-of-limitations issues related to the Sherman Act claims.The state-law issues—which were the subject of the subsequent oral argument, (Hr'gTr., ECF No. 291), and are the subject of this corresponding Order—encompass (1) the sufficiency of relevant Plaintiffs' allegations of Defendants Dongwon's and TUG's (A) direct participation in or (B) vicarious liability via (i) alter ego or (ii) agency principles under the alleged conspiracy; (2) the legal permissibility of all relevant Plaintiffs' attempt to bring claims on behalf of a nationwide California class; (3) the sufficiency of all relevant Plaintiffs' allegations under the various state-law causes of action; (4) all relevant Plaintiffs' standing to sue under various state-law standards; and (5) all statute-of-limitations issues related to the various state-law causes of action.
Six days prior to the scheduled hearing on the federal issues, the United States submitted a filing to "inform[ ]the Court that the first criminal case in the packaged-seafood investigation has been filed in the Northern District of California."(U.S.' Status Report re Information Filed in N.D. Cal. 1, ECF No. 268.)Several weeks later, the United States informed the Court"that the second criminal case in the packaged-seafood investigation has been filed in the Northern District of California."(U.S.' Status Report re Information Filed in N.D. Cal. 1, ECF No. 280.)
The Court held oral argument concerning the federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig.
... ... 9 Greene v. Gerber Prods. Co. , 262 F.Supp.3d 38, 60 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (collecting cases). In doing so, courts presented with ... Deceptive Trade Practices Act does not require proof of reliance); see also In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig. , 242 F.Supp.3d 1033, 1080-81 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (rejecting the ... ...
-
In re Pork Antitrust Litig.
... ... and understanding, or a meeting of the minds." Insulate , 797 F.3d at 543 (quoting Impro Prods., Inc. v. Herrick , 715 F.2d 1267, 1273 (8th Cir. 1983) ). This may be demonstrated through the ... other laws, including the common law, also fall within the purview of the CPPA."); In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig. , 242 F. Supp. 3d 1033, 1073 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (denying motion to ... ...
-
In re Effexor Antitrust Litig.
... ... 7 Greene v. Gerber Prods. Co. , 262 F.Supp.3d 38, 60 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (collecting cases). In doing so, courts presented with ... Deceptive Trade Practices Act does not require proof of reliance); see also In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig. , 242 F.Supp.3d 1033, 1080-81 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (rejecting the ... ...
-
Jones v. Micron Tech. Inc.
... ... he seeks." In re Carrier IQ Inc., Consumer Privacy Litig. , 78 F. Supp. 3d 1051, 1064-65 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (internal ... In re Auto. Parts Antitrust Litig. , 29 F. Supp. 3d 982, 997 (E.D. Mich. 2014) (citing ... Supp. 2d at 1061 ; see also In re Packaged Seafood Prod. Antitrust Litig. , 242 F. Supp. 3d 1033, ... Cal. Oct. 2, 2014) (citing In re Pool Prods. Distrib. Mkt. Antitrust Litig. , 946 F. Supp. 2d 554, 564 ... ...
-
Missouri
...re Generic Pharms. Pricing Antitrust Litig., 368 F. Supp. 3d 814, 840 (E.D. Pa. 2019); In re Packaged Seafood Prod. Antitrust Litig., 242 F. Supp. 3d 1033, 1079 (S.D. Cal. 2017); In re Pool Prods. Distrib. Mkt. Antitrust Litig., 946 F. Supp. 2d 554, 571 (E.D. La. 2013); Sheet Metal Workers ......