Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—M.D. Pa.: Time to file responsive pleadings extended in fast-set spray foam equipment litigation, (Aug 28, 2013)

By Tobias J. Gillett, J.D., LL.M.

In litigation alleging that a manufacturer of fast-set spray foam equipment conspired with its distributors to exclude competitors and to fix the price of the equipment, the federal district court in Scranton, Pennsylvania, has granted the defendants an extension of time to file responsive pleadings until 30 days after the court ruled on a motion to transfer venue (Insulate SB, Inc. v. Abrasive Products & Equipment, August 27, 2013, Kane, Y.).

On June 14, 2013, Insulate SB, Inc., a contractor using fast-set spray foam equipment, filed a putative class action complaint alleging that Graco, Inc., a manufacturer of such equipment, conspired with its distributors to deny its competitors access to the fast-set equipment distribution network. Insulate SB alleged that the distributors agreed to exclusively deal with Graco, and that Graco and the distributors conspired to vertically fix the price of the equipment.

Insulate SB moved for a preliminary injunction and for expedited discovery to allow it to obtain necessary information for a preliminary injunction hearing and class certification. Graco then moved to transfer the case to the District of Minnesota. In the present motion, 20 of the named defendants moved the court to extend the time for responsive pleadings until thirty days after the court ruled on the motion to transfer venue. Insulate SB filed a statement of non-opposition conditioned on the extension not prolonging the court’s decision on the motions for expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction.

The court granted the motion to extend the time for responsive pleadings. The court found it would “promote judicial economy” because it would prevent motions and briefing from having to be re-drafted and re-filed in the District of Minnesota if the court granted the change of venue. Moreover, the “extension would also streamline the different due dates by setting one date for all moving defendants.”

In addition, the court found there was “no reason to believe that an extension of time to file responsive pleadings would have any effect on the court’s disposition of the motion for expedited discovery or preliminary injunction.” Since there were “clear practical reasons for granting this extension,” the court also concluded that the defendants were not using the motion “as a pretext to cause undue delay.”

The case is No. 1:13-cv-1609.

Attorneys: Andrew R. Sperl (Duane Morris LLP) and Catherine F. Ngo (Nossaman LLP) for Insulate SB, Inc. Matthew R. Begley (Crady, Jewett & McCulley, LLP) for Abrasive Products & Equipment. Joseph U. Metz (Dilworth Paxson LLP) for Advanced Finishing Systems, Inc. Scott F. Wyatt (Wyatt Early Harris Wheeler LLP) for Air Power, Inc. Kevin M. Ward (Rawle & Henderson LLP) for Barnhardt Manufacturing Co. Paul W. Minnich (Barley, Snyder, Senft & Cohen, LLC) for C.H. Reed, Inc. Joshua E. Swiger (Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn & Dial LLC) for Corrosion Specialties, Inc. Anne M. Lockner (Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.) for Graco, Inc.

Companies: Insulate SB, Inc.; Abrasive Products & Equipment; Advanced Finishing Systems, Inc.; Air Power, Inc.; Barnhardt Manufacturing Co.; C.H. Reed, Inc.; Corrosion Specialties, Inc.; Graco, Inc.; Dove Equipment Co., Inc.; Golden State Paint Corp.; Intech Equipment & Supply, LLC; North Carolina Foam Industries; Spray Foam Nation; Spray Pump, Inc.; Urethane Supply Co.

Cases: Antitrust PennsylvaniaNews