Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—E.D. Mich.: Final judgment denied in multidistrict antitrust litigation, (Aug 6, 2013)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

Indirect purchaser plaintiffs were not entitled to final judgment on certain antitrust and consumer protection act claims against refrigerant compressor manufacturers and sellers or to certification of certain claims for interlocutory appeal, the federal district court in Detroit has ruled (In re: Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litigation, August 5, 2013, Cox, S.).

Direct purchasers of refrigerant compressor products alleged that an antitrust conspiracy existed between compressor manufacturers and sellers to inflate, fix, raise, maintain, or artificially stabilize prices for compressors. Indirect purchasers alleged state-law antitrust, consumer protection act, and unjust enrichment claims against the manufacturers and sellers based on that alleged conspiracy.

The court had previously resolved all motions seeking to dismiss the direct purchasers’ claims, and the case was ready to proceed to discovery. Several, but not all, defendants reached a settlement with the direct purchase plaintiffs and have sought preliminary approval of the settlement.

In 2012, the court ruled on the indirect purchasers’ third consolidated amended complaint and dismissed claims asserted under the laws of 11 states. In 2013, the court dismissed indirect purchasers’ claims under the antitrust statutes of 12 states for lack of antitrust standing, the antitrust claims under Tennessee’s antitrust statute for failure to allege a substantial effect on intrastate commerce, and the consumer protection act claims under the laws of five states. The indirect purchasers filed a motion for entry of final judgments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as to certain indirect purchasers and sought certification of certain claims for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291(b).

None of the named indirect purchaser plaintiffs in the third consolidated amended complaint could appeal any of the court’s rulings on the motions to dismiss, according to the court. Cases that are consolidated for trial or pretrial purposes do not lose their separate identity by virtue of the act of consolidation alone. In this case, however, the indirect purchasers filed a master amended complaints that superseded their previously-filed complaints.

The court declined to enter final judgment under Rule 54(b). Rule 54(b) governs the issuance of judgment on multiple claims or involving multiple parties and provides. The Sixth Circuit’s non-exhaustive list of factors that a court may consider in its Rule 54(b) ruling includes the relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims, the possibility that the need for review might be mooted by future developments in the district court, the possibility that the reviewing court might be obligated to consider the same issue a second time, and factors such as delay, economic, and solvency considerations. Judicial economy was best served by delaying appeal until all the issues can be confronted by the appellate court in a unified package. Granting a final judgment would result in either staying the direct purchaser claims as well, or placing the two cases on different discovery tracks.

The indirect purchasers’ request for certification of an interlocutory appeal under §1292(b) was denied by the court. §1292(b) provides that a court has the discretion to certify an order for interlocutory appeal if: 1) the order involves a controlling question of law; 2) a substantial ground for difference of opinion exists regarding the correctness of the decision; and 3) an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Certification is only granted in exceptional cases, and this case was not exceptional. The interests of judicial economy and the need to avoid piecemeal litigation weighed against an interlocutory appeal.

The case is No. 2:09-md-02042.

Attorneys: Darryl Bressack (Fink + Associates Law) for Gateway KGMP Development, Incorporated. Brian Byrne (Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP) for Whirlpool, SA.

Cases: Antitrust MichiganNews