Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03264/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03264-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION.

Case No. 14-cv-03264-JD 

ORDER GRANTING FPCAP’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 613

Defendant FPCAP Electronics (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (“FPCAP”) seeks dismissal from the 

direct purchaser plaintiffs’ consolidated class action complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 613. FPCAP moves separately from the other defendants whose 

motions the Court largely denied, Dkt. No. 710, because its response to the complaint was due 

later than the other defendants. Dkt. No. 613 at 4.

Direct purchaser plaintiffs point to only paragraphs 59 and 60 of their consolidated 

complaint as relating to FPCAP. Dkt. No. 520-2 at 1. These paragraphs, and the consolidated 

complaint overall, do not sufficiently allege that FPCAP “joined the conspiracy and played some 

role in it.” In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, 586 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1117 (N.D. 

Cal. 2008). The allegations of successor liability are also too conclusory to carry the day. See 

generally Dkt. No. 710 at 13-14.

Defendant FPCAP is consequently dismissed with leave to amend. The parties are to 

follow the schedule already put in place by the Court for any further amendment and response. 

Dkt. No. 735.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2015 ________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 739 Filed 06/11/15 Page 1 of 1