Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00064/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00064-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 1

 Defendant Thomas Carr joined co-Defendant Component Hardware Group, Inc.’s motion.

[Doc. No. 31.]

- 1 - 11cv64

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN RIGO, on behalf of himself and all

others similarly situated, doing business as

ALTERED AIR,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv64-MMA (POR)

vs. ORDER DENYING IN PART &

GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO

DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Doc. Nos. 30 & 32]

KASON INDUSTRIES, INC, et al,

Defendants.

This purported class action alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws is before the

Court on Defendants Kason Industries, Inc., Peter Katz, and Component Hardware Group, Inc.’s

motions to dismiss Plaintiff John Rigo doing business as Altered Air’s First Amended Complaint.1

[Doc. Nos. 30 & 32.] On July 8, 2011, the Court issued a tentative ruling granting in part and

denying in part Defendants’ motions. [Doc. No. 40.] On July 11, 2011, the Court held a hearing on

the motions. 

Having reviewed the submissions of the parties and considered the arguments of counsel, the

Court AFFIRMS IN PART its tentative ruling for reasons stated on the record during the hearing,

and in accordance therewith: 

Case 3:11-cv-00064-MMA-DHB Document 42 Filed 07/19/11 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 - 11cv64

The Court GRANTS IN PART All Defendants’ motions and DISMISSES without

prejudice Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for common counts, assumpsit, unjust enrichment, and

quasi-contract, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), as to all defendants. The Court

grants Plaintiff leave to amend this claim. If Plaintiff chooses to do so, he must file a Second

Amended Complaint no later than thirty (30) days from the filing of this Order.

The Court DENIES IN PART Corporate Defendants Kason Industries, Inc. and Component

Hardware Group, Inc.’s motions and declines to dismiss Plaintiff’s first cause of action for

injunctive relief under Section 16 of the Clayton Act for alleged violations of the Sherman Act, 15

U.S.C. § 1, as well as Plaintiff’s second and third causes of action, brought pursuant to the

Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16720, and California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal.

Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, as to these corporate defendants.

The Court DENIES IN PART Individual Defendants Thomas Carr and Peter Katz’s motions

and declines to dismiss Plaintiff’s second and third causes of action, brought pursuant to the

Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. § 16720 and California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &

prof. Code § 17200, as to these individual defendants.

* * *

Upon further review of the applicable case law and the submissions of the parties, the Court

DECLINES to affirm the remainder of its tentative ruling, and accordingly, for the following

reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Individual Defendants Thomas Carr and Peter Katz’s

motions and DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff’s first cause of action for injunctive relief under

Section 16 of the Clayton Act for alleged violations of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, as to these

individual defendants, pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution. 

Federal courts may entertain only “cases or controversies,” which the Supreme Court has

interpreted to prohibit the granting of injunctive relief against conduct that previously ceased. See

Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-41 (1937). However, a court may

review a claim, even if the allegedly violating conduct has ceased prior to review, if there is a

“reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated.” United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S.

629, 633 (1953), quoting United States v. Aluminium Co. of Am., 148 F.2d 416, 448 (2d Cir.1945).

Case 3:11-cv-00064-MMA-DHB Document 42 Filed 07/19/11 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - 11cv64

This exception is usually applied where the alleged violator voluntarily ceases the offending conduct

prior to, or upon the filing of, a lawsuit, in order to avoid the lawsuit, yet the violator is free to repeat

the conduct in the future if the court dismisses the lawsuit as moot. See, e.g., W.T. Grant Co., 345

U.S. at 632 n. 5, citing United States v. Or. State Med. Society, 343 U.S. 326, 333 (1952). 

Here, the individual defendants are not “free to repeat” their prior unlawful conduct at some

point in the future. According to the First Amended Complaint, Defendant Katz is no longer

employed by Defendant Kason, effective May 29, 2009. FAC ¶ 18. Defendant Carr is no longer

employed by Defendant Component Hardware Group, effective February 9, 2009. Id. ¶ 20. To the

extent Plaintiff seeks to enjoin these individuals from continuing their past anti-competitive actions

in the Food Service Equipment Component Hardware market, the request for relief is moot. 

Defendants Carr and Katz are incapable of repeating the anti-competitive actions alleged herein. It

is “the facts alleged” which determine the existence of a justiciable controversy. Golden v.

Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 108 (1969). Thus, in light of the facts pled in the First Amended Complaint,

there no longer exists “some cognizable danger of recurrent violation,” W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at

633, as to Individual Defendants Carr and Katz, and Plaintiff’s first cause of action for injunctive

relief under Section 16 of the Clayton Act for alleged violations of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1,

as to these individual defendants, is subject to dismissal with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 19, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00064-MMA-DHB Document 42 Filed 07/19/11 Page 3 of 3