UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

_________________________________

IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION MASTER FILE NO. 12-md-02311

_________________________________

In Re: Motor Generators HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

_________________________________

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 

Dealership Action 2:13-cv-01502

End-Payor Action 2:13-cv-01503

_________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTOR GENERATORS DEFENDANTS’ JOINT

MOTION TO DISMISS THE END-PAYORS’ CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS

ACTION COMPLAINT AND THE AUTOMOBILE DEALERS’ CONSOLIDATED 

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTS

Before the Court is Motor Generators Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Auto

Dealer Plaintiffs’ and the End-Payors Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Class Action

Complaints (Case No. 13-1502, Doc. No. 33; Case No. 13-1503, Doc. No. 27). 

Defendants include DENSO Corporation and DENSO International America, Inc.,

(together “DENSO Defendants”), Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. (“HIAMS”) and

Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc. (“HIAMS-US”) (together “Hitachi

Defendants”). 

2:13-cv-01502-MOB-MKM Doc # 53 Filed 02/26/15 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 1214
At the January 28, 2015, oral argument, Hitachi Defendants represented that

they had reached a settlement in this case, and have withdrawn from the motion. In

addition, the parties informed the Court that they had resolved their dispute as to the

standing of the End-Payor Plaintiffs and the Automobile Dealership Plaintiffs. The

parties waived oral argument on the remaining issues. 

To the extent that those arguments were raised in the Collective Motion to

Dismiss in the Anti-Vibration Rubber Parts, Radiators, Switches, Motor Generators, HID

Ballasts, Electronic Power Steering Assemblies, Fan Motors, Power Window Motors,

and Windshield Washer Systems, the Court declines to address them here. 

Consequently, the sole argument addressed below is the plausibility of the length of the

alleged conspiracy. For the reasons that follow, the Court rejects the argument, and the

motion is DENIED.

I. RELEVANT FACTS

Automobile Dealership Plaintiffs (“ADPs”), and End-Payor Plaintiffs (“EPPs”)

(collectively referred to as “Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs” or “IPPs”) filed separate

consolidated class action complaints (see Case No. 13-1502, Doc. No. 3 (redacted);

Case No. 13-1503, Doc. No. 10 (redacted)), advancing federal and state law claims

based upon their allegations that Defendants “manufactured, marketed, and/or sold”

Motor Generators in the United States to numerous Original Equipment Manufacturers

(“OEMs”), and engaged in a conspiracy to “unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain

and/or stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and customers in the United

States relative to Motor Generators from January 2000 through the present. (See Doc.

2

2:13-cv-01502-MOB-MKM Doc # 53 Filed 02/26/15 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 1215
No. 3 at ¶ 2, Doc. No. 10 at ¶ 2). It is undisputed that Motor Generators are used in

electric and hybrid electric vehicles to recharge the battery or to draw electricity from the

battery to power the motor. 

IPPs describe the process by which OEMs purchase Motor Generators. (Doc.

No. 3 at ¶ 103; Doc. No. 10 at ¶ 89). IPPs allege that the structure and other

characteristics of the Motor Generators market in the United States are conducive to a

price-fixing agreement, and have made collusion particularly attractive in this market. 

(Doc. No. 3 at ¶ 19; Doc. No. 10 at ¶ 92). Specifically, the Motor Generators market

has high barriers to entry, including long-standing customer relationships, advanced

engineering and technological prowess, costly and lengthy start-up costs and the ability

to integrate the Motor Generators design with existing vehicle models. (Doc. No. 3 at ¶¶

110-114; Doc. No. 10 at ¶¶ 93-96). The market also is characterized by inelasticity of

demand (Doc. No. 3 at ¶¶ 115-117; Doc. No. 10 at ¶¶ 97-99). IPPs assert that inelastic

demand in the Motor Generators market allowed the cartel to profit by increasing prices

above competitive levels during the Class Period. (Doc. No. 3 at ¶ 116; Doc. No. 10 at

¶ 98).

IPPs also include allegations about the government investigations into the

industry. Specifically, on November 22, 2012, the Japan Fair Trade Commission

announced cease-and-desist orders against the companies that had violated Japan’s

antitrust laws. According to IPPs, although DENSO Corporation violated the laws it did

not receive a cease-and-desist order. (Doc. No. 3 at ¶ 122; Doc. No. 10 at ¶ 104). In

addition, on September 26, 2013, the Department of Justice announced that Defendant

Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. agreed to pay a $195 million criminal fine and to plead

3

2:13-cv-01502-MOB-MKM Doc # 53 Filed 02/26/15 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 1216
guilty to a one-count criminal information charging it with participating in a conspiracy to

rig bids for, and to fix the prices of Motor Generators and other automotive parts sold to

OEMs, including Ford Motor Company, General Motors Company, Honda Motor

Company, Nissan Motor Company Ltd, Toyota Motor Company, Chrysler Group, LLC,

and Fuji Heavy industries, Ltd (“Subaru”), and certain of their subsidiaries, affiliates, and

suppliers, in the United States and elsewhere from at least as early as January 2000

and continuing until at least February 2010 in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §

1. (Doc. No. 3 at ¶¶ 127-132; Doc. No.10 at ¶ 107). 

In addition to the allegations regarding Defendants that pleaded guilty, in their

sealed complaints, IPPs describe a specific transaction involving collusion in responding

to Requests for Quotations (“RFQs”), and the who, what, where, and when associated

with the RFQs. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows district courts to dismiss a

complaint which fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” To survive a

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the plaintiff must show

that his complaint alleges facts which, if proven, would entitle him to relief. First Am.

Title Co. v. DeVaugh, 480 F.3d 438, 443 (6th Cir. 2007). “A complaint must contain

either direct or inferential allegations with respect to all material elements necessary to

sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.” Weiner v. Klais & Co., 108 F.3d 86,

88 (6th Cir. 1997). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court “must construe the

complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all factual allegations as true,

and determine whether the complaint contains enough facts to state a claim to relief that

4

2:13-cv-01502-MOB-MKM Doc # 53 Filed 02/26/15 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 1217
is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Although

the federal procedural rules do not require that the facts alleged in the complaint be

detailed, “‘a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitlement to relief’

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of

action's elements will not do.' ” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported

by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). 

In Twombly, the Supreme Court considered the pleading requirements needed to

withstand a motion to dismiss relative to a section 1 Sherman Act claim. It held that the

complaint must contain enough factual matter to “plausibly suggest” an agreement:

Asking for plausible grounds to infer an agreement does not

impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it

simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable

expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal

agreement. And, of course, a well-pleaded complaint may

proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of

those facts is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote

and unlikely.

550 U.S. at 556. 

III. ANALYSIS

In their motion, DENSO Defendants argue that IPPs fail to allege a plausible

conspiracy lasting fourteen years inasmuch as IPPs reference only one specific

allegation of a coordinated set of bids relevant to one OEM. Moreover, the bids were

made just a few years before the end of the conspiracy regarding a product that would

be manufactured years later. IPPs rely on this allegation to advance a claim based on

all sales of all eclectic and hybrid electric vehicles by all OEMs since January 2000, and

5

2:13-cv-01502-MOB-MKM Doc # 53 Filed 02/26/15 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 1218
the Court should find that IPPs have failed to allege facts to support the existence of a

conspiracy during the time period alleged. (See (Doc. No. 3 at ¶¶ 8, 125; Doc. No. 10 at

¶¶ 8, 106).

The Court disagrees. IPPs’ complaints allege an overarching conspiracy to rig

bids and fix the prices of Motor Generators. The complaints detail international

government investigations that resulted in the guilty pleas of other defendants for their

part in the price-fixing and bid-rigging of automotive component parts, including Motor

Generators, as well as the market conditions that facilitated the conspiracy. Here,

HIAMS pleaded guilty to an antitrust conspiracy from at least as early as January 2000. 

DENSO Corporation pleaded guilty to antitrust violations involving other component

parts. These two Defendants are linked to a specific example of bid rigging and pricefixing. Defendants have no authority to support their argument that dismissal of a civil

complaint is required when the complaint expanded beyond the conduct to which the

defendants in an antitrust criminal case have pleaded guilty, and this Court has declined

to dismiss complaints falling within 12-2311 on this ground. The existence of the guilty

pleas demonstrate that the Motor Generators conspiracy existed, and the allegation that

Defendants conspired from as early as 2000 is not implausible, particularly, when

HIAMS’ guilty plea is considered. The factual allegations advanced in the IPPs’

complaints create “a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal

agreement” beyond the extent admitted by HIAMS. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, DENSO Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

6

2:13-cv-01502-MOB-MKM Doc # 53 Filed 02/26/15 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 1219
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 26, 2015 s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to their

respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on February 26, 2015.

s/ Kay Doaks 

Case Manager

7

2:13-cv-01502-MOB-MKM Doc # 53 Filed 02/26/15 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 1220