IN RE REFRIGERANT COMPRESSORS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, 2:09-md-02042. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20120608b88
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 07, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 07, 2012
Summary: ORDER SEAN F. COX, District Judge. On this date, the Court heard argument on the " Twombly challenge" set forth in Defendants' Joint Motion "Motion To Dismiss The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint" (Docket Entry No. 162). The Court concludes that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' current operative complaint, the "Second Consolidated Amended Complaint," fails to state a claim under Twombly 1 , except as to the claims asserted against Defendants Panasonic Corpora
Summary: ORDER SEAN F. COX, District Judge. On this date, the Court heard argument on the " Twombly challenge" set forth in Defendants' Joint Motion "Motion To Dismiss The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint" (Docket Entry No. 162). The Court concludes that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' current operative complaint, the "Second Consolidated Amended Complaint," fails to state a claim under Twombly 1 , except as to the claims asserted against Defendants Panasonic Corporat..
More
ORDER
SEAN F. COX, District Judge.
On this date, the Court heard argument on the "Twombly challenge" set forth in Defendants' Joint Motion "Motion To Dismiss The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint" (Docket Entry No. 162). The Court concludes that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' current operative complaint, the "Second Consolidated Amended Complaint," fails to state a claim under Twombly1, except as to the claims asserted against Defendants Panasonic Corporation and Embraco North America, Inc., for the approximately three-year period set forth in their respective plea agreements. A memorandum opinion setting forth the basis for the Court's ruling shall be issued shortly.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the claims asserted in the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Complaint are DISMISSED as to all Defendants with the exception of Defendants Panasonic Corporation and Embraco North America, Inc.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Source: Leagle
