Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—E.D. Mich.: Electric powered steering assembly price fixing claims may proceed, (Mar 3, 2015)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

Manufacturers and sellers of electric powered steering assemblies (EPS assemblies) had sufficient minimum contacts in the United States for the federal district court in Detroit to exercise personal jurisdiction. The EPS assemblies manufacturers were therefore unable to dismiss allegations that they engaged in a price fixing conspiracy (In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, March 2, 2015, Battani, M.).

Background. Auto dealership plaintiffs and end-payor plaintiffs filed separate consolidated class action complaints, alleging that various defendants—including Showa Corp. and American Showa, Inc.—engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and customers in the United States for EPS assemblies. Showa Corp. and American Showa moved to dismiss the claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that personal jurisdiction should be determined based on the companies’ contacts with Michigan, not the United States as a whole.

Appropriate forum. The court first concluded that requiring a forum-specific jurisdictional inquiry in multidistrict litigation, such as in this case, would undermine the purpose of multidistrict consolidation and require duplicative actions in other district courts. Consequently, the court considered Showa’s contacts with the United States, not Michigan—where American Showa is incorporated—to determine whether it may exercise personal jurisdiction over the two companies.

Personal jurisdiction. It was undisputed, according to the court, that American Showa is incorporated in, has offices and employees in, and sells products in the United States. Further, Showa Corp. previously pleaded guilty to “causing a consequence” in the United States by participating in a conspiracy to rig bids and fix the prices of EPS assemblies sold to customers in the United States. Showa Corp. also admitted to traveling to the United States to meet with coconspirators. The plaintiffs further alleged that Showa Corp. controlled the actions of its subsidiary, American Showa, the court noted, concluding that the Showa companies purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of doing business in the United States.

The auto dealerships and end-payor plaintiffs’ cause of action also arose directly out of Showa’s contacts with the United States, the court found, because the same contacts that support personal jurisdiction gave rise to the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims. The court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Showa Corp. and American Showa was therefore deemed reasonable, and the motion to dismiss was therefore denied.

The case number is 12-md-02311.

Attorneys: Brendan H. Frey (Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, PC) for Automobile Dealer Plaintiffs. Adam T. Schnatz (The Miller Law Firm) and Bernard Persky (Robins Kaplan LLP) for End-Payor Plaintiffs. J. Clayton Everett (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP) for American Showa, Inc. and Showa Corp.

Companies: Showa Corp.; American Showa, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust MichiganNews