Filed: Jun. 06, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 06, 2013
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART YAZAKI CORPORATIONS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE AUTOMOBILE DEALERS' CONSOLIDATED CLASS COMPLAINT MARIANNE O. BATTANI, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Yazaki Corporations's Motion to Dismiss the Automobile Dealers' Consolidated Class Complaint (Doc. No. 358). Yazaki Corporation filed its motion and accompanying memorandum of law in support, in which it "fully adopt[ed] and incorporate[d] by reference the arguments advanced in Defe
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART YAZAKI CORPORATIONS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE AUTOMOBILE DEALERS' CONSOLIDATED CLASS COMPLAINT MARIANNE O. BATTANI, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Yazaki Corporations's Motion to Dismiss the Automobile Dealers' Consolidated Class Complaint (Doc. No. 358). Yazaki Corporation filed its motion and accompanying memorandum of law in support, in which it "fully adopt[ed] and incorporate[d] by reference the arguments advanced in Defen..
More
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART YAZAKI CORPORATIONS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE AUTOMOBILE DEALERS' CONSOLIDATED CLASS COMPLAINT
MARIANNE O. BATTANI, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Yazaki Corporations's Motion to Dismiss the Automobile Dealers' Consolidated Class Complaint (Doc. No. 358). Yazaki Corporation filed its motion and accompanying memorandum of law in support, in which it "fully adopt[ed] and incorporate[d] by reference the arguments advanced in Defendants' Collective Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Collective motion to Dismiss the End-Payors' Corrected Consolidated Amended Class Action and Complaint and the Automobile Dealers' Consolidated Class Complaint. See Doc. No. 258 at 2.
For the reasons articulated in the Court's Opinion and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Collective Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Indirect Purchaser Actions, Yazaki Corporation's Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
ADPs' antitrust claims under Massachusetts, Missouri, and Illinois are DISMISSED. The applicable statutes of limitation limit damages under the laws of Utah and New Hampshire. ADPs' consumer protection claims under Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and the District of Columbia are DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
