Ortiz v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. (In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig.)
| Decision Date | 22 June 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 16-4164,No. 16-4086,16-4086 |
| Citation | 893 F.3d 1047 |
| Parties | IN RE: PRE-FILLED PROPANE TANK ANTITRUST LITIGATION Mario Ortiz; Stephen Morrison; Steven Tseffos, Plaintiffs-Appellants Sean Venezia; Michael S. Harvey; Gregory Ludvigsen; Arthur Hull; Alan Rockwell; James Halgerson; Thomas R. Clark; Bryce Mander; Alex Chernavsky; Robert Orr; Eric Blum ; Paul Toomey, Plaintiffs William Vincent, Plaintiff-Appellant David McNally ; Steven Lutrell; Ken Cramer, Plaintiffs Kevin Dougherty, Plaintiff-Appellant James Ristow; Daniel Kelleher ; Richard Pedrick; Dallas May, Jr.; Tom Roberts, Plaintiffs John Gilbert; Mark Stevens; Richard Paradowski, Plaintiffs-Appellants Hanz De Perio, Plaintiff Josh Bartholow, Plaintiff-Appellant Joseph M. Haala; Scott Zuehlke ; Wesley H. McCullough; Richard Sanchez; MaryLou Breed; Jerry Marshall, Plaintiffs Troy Winters ; Thomas Gane; Gary Snow ; Nicholas Pulli; Allan Disbrow, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. a limited partnership; Ferrellgas, L.P. a limited partnership, doing business as Blue Rhino; AmeriGas Propane, L.P. a limited partnership, doing business as AmeriGas Cylinder Exchange; UGI Corporation, a corporation; AmeriGas Propane, Inc.; AmeriGas Partners, L.P., Defendants-Appellees Robert Orr; Eric Blum ; Paul Toomey; William Vincent; David McNally ; Steven Lutrell; Ken Cramer ; Kevin Dougherty ; James Ristow; Daniel Kelleher ; Richard Pedrick; Dallas May, Jr.; Tom Roberts; John Gilbert; Mark Stevens; Richard Paradowski; Hanz De Perio; Josh Bartholow; Joseph M. Haala; Scott Zuehlke ; Wesley H. McCullough; Richard Sanchez; MaryLou Breed; Jerry Marshall, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.; Ferrellgas, L.P.; AmeriGas Partners, L.P., Defendants-Appellees |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellants was John Michael DeStefano, III, of Phoenix, AZ. The following attorneys also appeared on the appellant brief; Norman Siegel, of Kansas City, MO., Barrett Jay Vahle, of Kansas City, MO., Robert B. Carey, of Phoenix, AZ., Leonard Wayne Aragon, of Phoenix, AZ., Sean R. Cooper, of Kansas City, MO.
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellees was Ginger Anders, of Washington, DC. The following attorneys appeared on the appellee brief; Craig Steven O'Dear, of Kansas City, MO., Jay Norman Varon, of Washington, DC., Brandon J.B. Boulware, of Kansas City, MO., Jeremy Suhr, of Kansas City, MO., Catesby Ann Major, of Kansas City, MO., Daniel M. Wall, of San Francisco, CA., Niall Edmund Lynch, of San Francisco, CA., Elizabeth A. N. Haas, of Milwaukee, WI., Kate E. Gehl, of Milwaukee, WI., Aaron Chiu, of San Francisco, CA.
Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiffs sued Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas, L.P. (collectively "Ferrellgas"), and AmeriGas Partners, L.P., alleging antitrust violations and seeking relief under federal and state law. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms in part and remands in part.
Ferrellgas1 and AmeriGas are the nation's largest distributors of pre-filled propane exchange tanks, which come in a standard size. Before 2008, Defendants filled the tanks with 17 pounds of propane. In 2008, due to rising propane prices, Defendants reduced the amount in each tank from 17 to 15 pounds, but maintained the same price. According to the plaintiffs, this "effectively rais[ed] the price charged for propane in those tanks."
In 2009, a group of plaintiffs—indirect purchasers who bought tanks from retailers—filed a class action alleging Defendants conspired to reduce the amount of propane in the tanks while maintaining the price, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. In 2010, the plaintiffs and AmeriGas settled. See In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig. , 2010 WL 2008837 (W.D. Mo. May 19, 2010) (). Also in 2010, those plaintiffs again sued Ferrellgas, settling in 2012. (This court refers to those suits collectively as " Propane I .") On March 27, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint against Defendants—settled on January 7, 2015, by consent orders—for conspiring to artificially inflate tank prices. See In re Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., et al. , 2014 WL 1396496 (Mar. 27, 2014).
On May 30, 2014, another group of indirect purchasers ("the Ortiz plaintiffs") brought a class action against Defendants, alleging: "Despite their settlements, Defendants continued to conspire, and rather than resuming competition, maintained their illegally agreed-upon fill levels, preserving the unlawfully inflated prices that their conspiracy had produced," and "Defendants continued to have regular communications regarding pricing, fill levels, and market allocation until at least late 2010." They seek injunctive relief and disgorgement for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. They also seek damages under the antitrust laws of 23 states and the District of Columbia—all with statutes allowing indirect-purchaser suits for state-antitrust damages despite Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois , 431 U.S. 720, 97 S.Ct. 2061, 52 L.Ed.2d 707 (1977), which bars those suits for federal-antitrust damages.
The Ortiz class action became part of a multidistrict proceeding that included a class action with similar allegations by direct purchasers (who bought tanks directly from Defendants for resale). The direct-purchaser suit seeks federal-antitrust damages, which the district court dismissed as time-barred. The district court explained (1) the statute of limitations accrued on August 1, 2008, the latest "all Defendants began selling fifteen pound tanks"; and (2) new purchases of tanks after that date did not restart the statute of limitations. In re : Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig. , 2015 WL 12791756, at *3 (W.D. Mo. July 2, 2015). This court—en banc—reversed, holding that " ‘each sale to the plaintiff[s]’ in a price-fixing conspiracy ‘starts the statutory period running again’ " and is an "overt act, inflicting new and accumulating injury." In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig. , 860 F.3d 1059, 1067-68 (8th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (" Propane En Banc "), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 647, 199 L.Ed.2d 530 (2018), quoting Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp. , 521 U.S. 179, 189, 117 S.Ct. 1984, 138 L.Ed.2d 373 (1997).
Before this court issued Propane En Banc , the district court made several rulings in Ortiz . It dismissed as time-barred the indirect purchasers' state-law-damages claims. The district court ruled that, like direct purchases, new indirect purchases did not restart the statute of limitations. For the same reason, the district court dismissed the indirect purchasers' federal-disgorgement claim. But it allowed the federal-injunctive claim to proceed.
To address the statute of limitations, the Ortiz plaintiffs moved for leave to amend to add three new subclasses asserting damages: (1) a six-year statute-of-limitations subclass, for violations of Maine, Vermont, and Wisconsin law; (2) a new-purchaser subclass, for violations of Kansas antitrust law; and (3) a new-purchaser subclass, for violations of the laws of " Illinois Brick repealer states." The new-purchaser subclasses included individuals who bought propane tanks for the first time after March 27, 2011. The Ortiz plaintiffs also proposed another federal-disgorgement claim.
The district court ruled that the amendments to add the disgorgement claim and the new-purchaser subclasses would be futile because the claims are time-barred. According to the district court, first-time purchases after March 27, 2011, are irrelevant because the statute of limitations accrued in August 2008, and—as it previously concluded—new purchases did not restart the clock. The district court did, however, rule that the six-year statute-of-limitations subclass raised timely claims. Filed on October 16, 2015, the Ortiz amended complaint retains the federal-injunctive claim, in addition to asserting the six-year statute-of-limitations subclass's state-law-damages claim.
The district court later dismissed the federal-injunctive claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), concluding (1) the indirect purchasers lack standing, and (2) the doctrine of laches bars the claim. Meanwhile, on July 21, 2016, another group of indirect purchasers ("the Orr plaintiffs") not named in the Ortiz complaint sued Defendants. The Orr complaint—consolidated into the same multidistrict proceeding with Ortiz —includes the federal-disgorgement claim and the new-purchaser subclasses that the Ortiz plaintiffs tried to add to their complaint, along with a six-year statute-of-limitations subclass damages claim and a federal-injunctive claim.
Ferrellgas moved for summary judgment against the Ortiz plaintiffs, arguing the Propane I release barred the claims of the six-year statute-of-limitations subclass. The release says:
[T]he Releasing Persons hereby fully, finally, and forever release, relinquish, and discharge the Released Persons from any and all liabilities, claims, rights, suits, and causes of action, of any kind whatsoever, that the Releasing Persons may have or may have had ... whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, threatened, asserted, or unasserted ... that were or could have been sought or alleged in the Litigation related to the filling, purchase, sale or exchange of Ferrellgas's 20-pound propane gas cylinders.
The district court ruled that the release In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig. , 2016 WL 6963058, at *4 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 2, 2016) (internal citation omitted). The plaintiffs argued...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Neb.
...Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ); see also In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig. , 893 F.3d 1047, 1056 (8th Cir. 2018) (noting the plausibility standard from Twombly and Iqbal "applies to Rule 12(c) motions"). A claim is facia......
-
Sabata v. Neb. Dep't of Corr. Servs.
...is an element of the requirement that an actual controversy must exist at all stages of a case. In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig., 893 F.3d 1047, 1054 (8th Cir. 2018). To show standing when seeking injunctive relief,a plaintiff must show that he is under threat of suffering "in......
-
Schultz v. U.S. Dep't of Educ. (In re Schultz)
...on the pleadings are generally reviewed under the same standard as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion. In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig., 893 F.3d 1047, 1056 (8th Cir. 2018) ; Ginsburg v. InBev NV/SA, 623 F.3d 1229, 1233 n.3 (8th Cir. 2010). As the analysis under Fed. R. Civ. P.......
-
Andrew v. Hamilton Cnty. Pub. Hosp.
...or(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig., 893 F.3d 1047, 1059-60 (8th Cir. 2018). Thus, pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), "the District Court may well find that [a] case, now raising only state-l......
-
Table of Cases
...527, 532, 533, 537, 563 Pre-Filled Propane, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232424 (W.D. Mo. 2021), 918 Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig., 893 F.3d 1047 (8th Cir. 2018), 1005 Preformed Line Prods. Co. v. Fanner Mfg. Co., 328 F.2d 265 (6th Cir. 1964), 1263 Premier Elec. Constr. Co. v. Miller-Da......
-
Private Antitrust Suits
...allege facts establishing utility’s monopoly power or predatory intent). 1413. See, e.g., In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig., 893 F.3d 1047, 1052 (8th Cir. 2018) (partially affirming summary judgment where indirect-purchaser plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief b......
-
Gotta Get Those Ill-Gotten Gains: Improving the FTC's Authority to Seek Disgorgement in Antitrust Cases.
...action, permitting disgorgement does raise the specter of duplicative recoveries."); In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig., 893 F.3d 1047, 1058-59 (8th Cir. 2018); Minn. ex rel. Ellison v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, No. 3:18-cv-14999, 2020 WL 2394155, at *8 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2020) (ci......