UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MARTENS CARS OF WASHINGTON, INC.; 

LANDERS AUTO GROUP NO. 1, INC., D/B/A 

LANDERS TOYOTA; HAMMETT MOTOR 

COMPANY, INC.; SUPERSTORE AUTOMOTIVE, 

INC.; LEE PONTIAC-OLDSMOBILE-GMC 

TRUCK, INC.; V.I.P. MOTOR CARS LTD.; 

DESERT EUROPEAN MOTORCARS, LTD.; 

DALE MARTENS NISSAN SUBARU, INC.; 

GREEN TEAM OF CLAY CENTER INC.; 

MCGRATH AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.; 

TABLE ROCK AUTOMOTIVE, INC., D/B/A 

TODD ARCHER HYUNDAI; ARCHER-PERDUE, 

INC., D/B/A/ ARCHER-PERDUE SUZUKI; 

BONNEVILLE AND SON, INC.; HOLZHAUER 

AUTO AND TRUCK SALES, INC.; PITRE, INC., 

D/B/A/ PITRE BUICK GMC; PATSY LOU 

CHEVROLET, INC.; JOHN GREENE CHRYSLER 

DODGE JEEP, LLC; SLT GROUP II, INC., D/B/A 

PLANET NISSAN SUBARU OF FLAGSTAFF; 

HERB HALLMAN CHEVROLET, INC., D/B/A/ 

CHAMPION CHEVROLET; CHARLES DAHER’S 

COMMONWEALTH MOTORS, INC., D/B/A 

COMMONWEALTH CHEVROLET, 

COMMONWEALTH KIA, COMMONWEALTH 

HONDA; COMMONWEALTH VOLKSWAGEN, 

INC., D/B/A COMMONWEALTH 

VOLKSWAGEN; COMMONWEALTH NISSAN, 

INC., D/B/A COMMONWEALTH NISSAN; 

RAMEY MOTORS, INC.; THORNHILL 

SUPERSTORE, INC., D/B/A THORNHILL GM 

SUPERSTORE; DAVE HEATHER 

CORPORATION, D/B/A LAKELAND TOYOTA 

HONDA MAZDA SUBARU; CENTRAL SALT 

LAKE VALLEY GMC ENTERPRISES, LLC, 

D/B/A SALT LAKE VALLEY BUICK GMC; 

CAPITOL CHEVROLET CADILLAC, INC.; 

CAPITOL DEALERSHIPS, INC., D/B/A CAPITOL 

TOYOTA; BECK MOTORS, INC.; STRANGER 

INVESTMENTS D/B/A STEPHEN WADE 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No.__________ 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

FOR DAMAGES AND 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Related to: 12-md-02311 and 2:14-

cv-2902 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 1 of 103 Pg ID 1
2 

TOYOTA JOHN O’NEIL JOHNSON TOYOTA, 

LLC; HARTLEY BUICK GMC TRUCK, INC.; LEE 

OLDSMOBILE-CADILLAC, INC. D/B/A LEE 

HONDA; LEE AUTO MALLS-TOPSHAM, INC. 

D/B/A LEE TOYOTA OF TOPSHAM; LANDERS 

OF HAZELWOOD, LLC D/B/A LANDERS 

TOYOTA OF HAZELWOOD; LITTLE ROCK 

CDJ, INC. D/B/A STEVE LANDERS CHRYSLER 

DODGE JEEP CANNON CHEVROLET – 

OLDSMOBILE – CADILLAC – NISSAN, INC.; 

CANNON NISSAN OF JACKSON, LLC; HUDSON 

CHARLESTON ACQUISITION, LLC D/B/A 

HUDSON NISSAN; SHEARER AUTOMOTIVE 

ENTERPRISES III, INC.; APEX MOTOR 

CORPORATION; HUDSON GASTONIA 

ACQUISITION, LLC AND HC ACQUISITION, 

LLC D/B/A TOYOTA OF BRISTOL; HODGES 

IMPORTED CARS, INC. D/B/A HODGES 

SUBARU; RENO DODGE SALES, INC. D/B/A 

DON WEIR’S RENO DODGE; PANAMA CITY 

AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. D/B/A JOHN LEE 

NISSAN, and EMPIRE NISSAN OF SANTA ROSA, 

LLC, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others 

Similarly Situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

TOYO TIRE & RUBBER CO., LTD., and TOYO 

AUTOMOTIVE PARTS (USA), INC., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Martens Cars of Washington, Inc. (“Plaintiff Martens”), Landers Auto Group No. 1, Inc., 

d/b/a Landers Toyota (“Plaintiff Landers”), Hammett Motor Company, Inc. (“Plaintiff Hammett”), 

Superstore Automotive, Inc. (“Plaintiff Superstore”), Lee Pontiac-Oldsmobile-GMC Truck, Inc. 

(“Plaintiff Lee”), V.I.P. Motor Cars Ltd. (“Plaintiff V.I.P.”), Desert European Motorcars, Ltd. 

(“Plaintiff Desert”), Dale Martens Nissan Subaru, Inc. (“Plaintiff Dale Martens”), Green Team of 

Clay Center Inc. (“Plaintiff Green Team”), McGrath Automotive Group, Inc. (“Plaintiff 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 2 of 103 Pg ID 2
3 

McGrath”), Table Rock Automotive, Inc., d/b/a Todd Archer Hyundai (“Plaintiff Table Rock”), 

Archer-Perdue, Inc., d/b/a/ Archer-Perdue Suzuki (“Plaintiff Archer-Perdue”), Bonneville and Son, 

Inc. (“Plaintiff Bonneville”), Holzhauer Auto and Truck Sales, Inc. (“Plaintiff Holzhauer”), Pitre, 

Inc., d/b/a/ Pitre Buick GMC (“Plaintiff Pitre”), Patsy Lou Chevrolet, Inc. (“Plaintiff Patsy Lou”), 

John Greene Chrysler Dodge Jeep, LLC (“Plaintiff John Greene”), SLT Group II, Inc., d/b/a Planet 

Nissan Subaru of Flagstaff (“Plaintiff Planet Nissan”), Herb Hallman Chevrolet, Inc., d/b/a/ 

Champion Chevrolet (“Plaintiff Champion”), Charles Daher’s Commonwealth Motors, Inc., d/b/a 

Commonwealth Chevrolet, Commonwealth Kia, Commonwealth Honda (“Plaintiff 

Commonwealth Motors”), Commonwealth Volkswagen, Inc., d/b/a Commonwealth Volkswagen 

(“Plaintiff Commonwealth Volkswagen”), Commonwealth Nissan, Inc., d/b/a Commonwealth 

Nissan (“Plaintiff Commonwealth Nissan”), Ramey Motors, Inc. (“Plaintiff Ramey”), Thornhill 

Superstore, Inc., d/b/a Thornhill GM Superstore (“Plaintiff Thornhill”), Dave Heather 

Corporation, d/b/a Lakeland Toyota Honda Mazda Subaru (“Plaintiff Lakeland”), Central Salt 

Lake Valley GMC Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Salt Lake Valley Buick GMC (“Plaintiff Salt Lake 

Valley”), Capitol Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc. (“Plaintiff Capitol Chevrolet”), Capitol Dealerships, Inc.,

d/b/a Capitol Toyota (“Plaintiff Capitol Toyota”), Beck Motors, Inc. (“Plaintiff Beck”), Stranger 

Investments d/b/a Stephen Wade Toyota (“Plaintiff Wade”), John O’Neil Johnson Toyota, LLC 

(“Plaintiff Johnson”), Hartley Buick GMC Truck, Inc. (“Plaintiff Hartley”), Lee OldsmobileCadillac, Inc. d/b/a Lee Honda (“Plaintiff Lee Honda”), Lee Auto Malls-Topsham, Inc. d/b/a Lee 

Toyota of Topsham (“Plaintiff Topsham”), Landers of Hazelwood, LLC d/b/a Landers Toyota of 

Hazelwood (“Plaintiff Hazelwood”), Little Rock CDJ, Inc. d/b/a Steve Landers Chrysler Dodge 

Jeep (“Landers Chrysler”) , Cannon Chevrolet – Oldsmobile – Cadillac – Nissan, Inc. (“Plaintiff 

Cannon”), Cannon Nissan of Jackson, LLC (“Plaintiff Cannon Nissan”), Hudson Charleston 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 3 of 103 Pg ID 3
4 

Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Hudson Nissan (“Plaintiff Hudson Nissan”), Shearer Automotive 

Enterprises III, Inc. (“Plaintiff Shearer”), Apex Motor Corporation (“Plaintiff Apex”), Hudson 

Gastonia Acquisition, LLC (“Plaintiff Gastonia Nissan”); HC Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Toyota of 

Bristol (“Plaintiff Bristol Toyota”), Hodges Imported Cars, Inc. d/b/a Hodges Subaru (“Plaintiff 

Hodges”), Reno Dodge Sales, Inc. d/b/a Don Weir’s Reno Dodge (“Plaintiff Don Weir”), Panama 

City Automotive Group, Inc. d/b/a John Lee Nissan (“Plaintiff John Lee”), and Empire Nissan of 

Santa Rosa, LLC (“Plaintiff Empire Nissan”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), file this Class Action 

Complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (the “Classes” as defined 

below). 

Plaintiffs bring this class action for damages, injunctive relief, and other relief pursuant to 

federal antitrust laws and state unjust enrichment, antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer 

protection laws, demand a trial by jury, and allege as follows: 

NATURE OF ACTION

1. This lawsuit is brought as a proposed class action against Defendants Toyo Tire & 

Rubber Co., Ltd., and Toyo Automotive Parts (USA), Inc. (collectively, “Toyo” or 

“Defendants”) and unnamed co-conspirators, manufacturers and/or suppliers of Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products (defined below) for engaging in a long-running 

conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices, rig bids for, and 

allocate the market and customers in the United States for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products. 

2. Plaintiffs seek to represent all automobile dealers who, during the period from and 

including January 1, 2006 through the present (the “Class Period”), purchased vehicles 

containing one or more Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product(s) as a component 

part, or indirectly purchased one or more Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product(s) as 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 4 of 103 Pg ID 4
5 

a replacement part, which were manufactured or sold by the Defendants, any current or former 

subsidiary of the Defendants or any co-conspirator of the Defendants. 

3. “Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products” are composed of rubber or 

plastic, and are used to cover the constant-velocity-joints of an automobile to protect the joints 

from contaminants. 

4. The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products throughout and into the United States. Defendants and other co-conspirators 

(as yet unknown) agreed, combined and conspired to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices, 

rig bids and allocate market shares for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

5. The U.S. Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) Antitrust Division is currently 

conducting a broad criminal investigation into illegal price-fixing and bid-rigging in the 

automotive parts industry. As part of its criminal investigation, the DOJ is seeking information 

about unlawful anticompetitive conduct in the market for a number of different but related 

automotive parts, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) has participated in raids, 

pursuant to search warrants, carried out in the offices of a number of major competitors in the 

automotive parts industry. The automotive parts investigation is the largest criminal 

investigation the Antitrust Division has ever pursued, both in terms of its scope and the potential 

volume of commerce affected by the alleged illegal conduct. The ongoing cartel investigation of 

price-fixing and bid-rigging in the automotive parts industry has yielded more than $2.3 billion 

in criminal fines, already surpassing the total amount in criminal fines obtained by the DOJ’s 

Antitrust Division. The European Commission Competition Authority (“EC”) has also 

conducted dawn raids at the European offices of several automotive parts manufacturers. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 5 of 103 Pg ID 5
6 

6. On November 26, 2013, the DOJ announced that Defendant Toyo Tire & Rubber 

Co., Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and pay a $120 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy 

to fix prices of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, and another automotive part, 

installed in automobiles sold in the United States and elsewhere. 

7. The Defendants and their co-conspirators participated in a combination and 

conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the automotive parts industry by agreeing to 

rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of, Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products sold to automobile manufacturers and others in the United States. The 

combination and conspiracy engaged in by the Defendants and their co-conspirators was in 

unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce in violation of the Sherman 

Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and state antitrust, unfair competition and consumer protection 

laws. 

8. As a direct result of the anti-competitive and unlawful conduct alleged herein, 

Plaintiffs and the Classes (as defined below) paid artificially inflated prices for Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products during the Class Period and have thereby suffered 

antitrust injury to their business or property. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. Plaintiffs bring this action under Section 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 26) to 

secure equitable and injunctive relief against the Defendants for violating Section 1 of the 

Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1). Plaintiffs also assert claims for actual and exemplary damages 

pursuant to state antitrust, unfair competition and consumer protection laws, and seek to obtain 

restitution, recover damages and secure other relief against the Defendants for violations of those 

state laws. Plaintiffs and the Classes also seek attorneys’ fees, costs, and other expenses under 

federal and state law. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 6 of 103 Pg ID 6
7 

10. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 

Section 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 26), Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1), 

and Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1331 and 1337. This Court has subject matter 

jurisdiction of the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and 1367, in that: (i) this is 

a class action in which the matter or controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000, exclusive of 

interests and costs, and in which some members of the proposed Classes are citizens of a state 

different from the Defendants; and (ii) Plaintiffs’ state law claims form part of the same case or 

controversy as their federal claims under Article III of the United States Constitution. 

11. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Section 12 of the Clayton Act (15 

U.S.C. § 22), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b), (c), and (d), because a substantial part of the events 

giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District, a substantial portion of the affected 

interstate trade and commerce discussed below has been carried out in this District, and the 

Defendants reside, are licensed to do business in, are doing business in, had agents in, or are 

found or transact business in this District. 

12. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over the Defendants because the 

Defendants, either directly or through the ownership and/or control of their subsidiaries, inter 

alia: (a) transacted business in the United States, including in this District; (b) directly or 

indirectly sold or marketed substantial quantities of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products throughout the United States, including in this District; (c) had substantial aggregate 

contacts with the United States as a whole, including in this District; (d) targeted customers in 

the United States, including in this District; or (e) were engaged in an illegal price-fixing 

conspiracy that was directed at, and had a direct, substantial, reasonably foreseeable and intended 

effect of causing injury to the business or property of persons and entities residing in, located in, 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 7 of 103 Pg ID 7
8 

or doing business throughout the United States, including in this District. The Defendants also 

conduct business throughout the United States, including in this District, and have purposefully 

availed themselves of the laws of the United States. 

13. The Defendants engaged in conduct both inside and outside of the United States 

that caused direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable and intended anticompetitive effects 

upon interstate commerce within the United States. 

14. The activities of the Defendants and their co-conspirators were within the flow of, 

were intended to, and did have, a substantial effect on interstate commerce of the United States. 

The Defendants’ products are sold in the flow of interstate commerce. 

15. Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured abroad by the 

Defendants and sold for use in automobiles in the United States are goods brought into the 

United States for sale, and therefore constitute import commerce. To the extent any Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products are purchased in the United States, and such Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products do not constitute import commerce, the Defendants’ 

unlawful activities with respect thereto, as more fully alleged herein during the Class Period, 

had, and continue to have, a direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable effect on United States 

commerce. The anticompetitive conduct, and its effect on United States commerce described 

herein, proximately caused antitrust injury to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes in the United 

States. 

16. By reason of the unlawful activities hereinafter alleged, the Defendants 

substantially affected commerce throughout the United States, causing injury to Plaintiffs and 

members of the Classes. The Defendants, directly and through their agents, engaged in activities 

affecting all states, to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices, rig bids and allocate the market 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 8 of 103 Pg ID 8
9 

and customers in the United States for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, 

which conspiracy unreasonably restrained trade and adversely affected the market for 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

17. The Defendants’ conspiracy and wrongdoing described herein adversely affected 

automobile dealers in the United States. 

PARTIES

Plaintiffs 

18. Plaintiff Hammett is a Mississippi corporation with its principal place of business 

in Durant, Mississippi. Plaintiff Hammett is an authorized Ford dealer who bought Ford-brand 

vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, during the Class Period. 

19. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Hammett purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by Defendants or their coconspirators. Plaintiff Hammett also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products, manufactured by Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair and service 

business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Hammett purchased and received both the aforementioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in Mississippi. 

Plaintiff Hammett has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in Mississippi 

during the Class Period. 

20. Plaintiff Landers is an Arkansas corporation with its principal place of business in 

Little Rock, Arkansas. Plaintiff Landers is an authorized Toyota dealer who bought Toyotabrand vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 9 of 103 Pg ID 9
10 

the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, during the Class Period. 

21. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Landers purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Landers also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair and 

service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Landers purchased and received both the 

afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in Arkansas. 

Plaintiff Landers has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in Arkansas 

during the Class Period. 

22. Plaintiff Superstore is a Minnesota company, with its principal place of business 

in White Bear Lake, Minnesota. Plaintiff Superstore is an authorized Buick/GMC dealer, doing 

business under the name White Bear Lake Superstore. Plaintiff Superstore bought Buick- and 

GMC-brand vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators during the 

Class Period. 

23. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Superstore purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Superstore also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair 

and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Superstore purchased and received both 

the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 10 of 103 Pg ID 10
11 

Minnesota. Plaintiff Superstore has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in 

Minnesota during the Class Period. 

24. Plaintiff Martens is a Maryland corporation that had its principal place of business 

in the District of Columbia during the Class Period. During the Class Period Plaintiff Martens 

was an authorized Volvo and Volkswagen dealer who sold Volvo- and Volkswagen-brand 

vehicles containing Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more of the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. 

25. During the Class Period Plaintiff Martens purchased vehicles containing 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their 

co-conspirators. Plaintiff Martens also purchased Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair and service 

business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Martens purchased and received both the aforementioned vehicles and Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in the District of Columbia. 

Plaintiff Martens has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in the District of 

Columbia during the Class Period. 

26. Plaintiff Lee is a Florida corporation, with its principal place of business in Fort 

Walton Beach, Florida. Plaintiff Lee is presently an authorized GMC dealer. During the Class 

Period, Plaintiff Lee was also an authorized Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Jeep dealer. Plaintiff Lee 

buys GMC-brand vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators. During 

the Class Period, Plaintiff Lee bought Pontiac-, Oldsmobile-, and Jeep-brand vehicles containing 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 11 of 103 Pg ID 11
12 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their coconspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators. 

27. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Lee purchased vehicles containing Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or their coconspirators. Plaintiff Lee also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, 

manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair and service 

business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Lee purchased and received both the aforementioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in Florida. Plaintiff 

Lee has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in Florida during the Class 

Period. 

28. Plaintiff V.I.P. is a California company with its principal place of business in 

Palm Springs, California. Plaintiff VIP is an authorized Mercedes, BMW, Infiniti, and Hyundai 

dealer who bought Mercedes-, BMW-, Infiniti-, and Hyundai-brand vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their coconspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

29. During the Class Period, Plaintiff V.I.P. purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff V.I.P. also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products, for its repair and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff V.I.P. purchased 

and received both the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 12 of 103 Pg ID 12
13 

Products in California. Plaintiff V.I.P. has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its 

vehicles in California during the Class Period. 

30. Plaintiff Desert is a California company, with its principal place of business in 

Rancho Mirage, California. Plaintiff Desert is an authorized Rolls Royce, Bentley, Aston 

Martin, Maserati, Porsche, Jaguar, Land Rover, Audi, Lotus, and Spyker dealer who bought 

Rolls Royce-, Bentley-, Aston Martin-, Maserati-, Porsche-, Jaguar-, Land Rover-, Audi-, Lotus-, 

and Spyker-brand vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators during the 

Class Period. 

31. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Desert purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Desert also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair and 

service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Desert purchased and received both the aforementioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in California. 

Plaintiff Desert has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in California during 

the Class Period. 

32. Plaintiff Dale Martens was a Kansas corporation, with its principal place of 

business in Lawrence, Kansas during the Class Period. Plaintiff Dale Martens was an authorized 

Nissan and Subaru dealer during the Class Period, who, during the Class Period, bought Nissanand Subaru-brand vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 13 of 103 Pg ID 13
14 

manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators. 

33. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Dale Martens purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Dale Martens also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair 

and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Dale Martens purchased and received 

both the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in 

Kansas. Plaintiff Dale Martens has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in 

Kansas during the Class Period. 

34. Plaintiff Green Team is a Kansas corporation, with its principal place of business 

in Clay Center, Kansas. Plaintiff Green Team is an authorized Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, and Ram 

dealer, who bought Chrysler-, Jeep-, Dodge-, and Ram-brand vehicles containing Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, 

as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants 

or their co-conspirators, during the Class Period. 

35. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Green Team purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Green Team also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair 

and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Green Team purchased and received both 

the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in Kansas. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 14 of 103 Pg ID 14
15 

Plaintiff Green Team has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in Kansas 

during the Class Period. 

36. Plaintiff McGrath is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business 

in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Plaintiff McGrath is an authorized Buick, GMC, Chevrolet, Chrysler, 

Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Kia, and Cadillac dealer, who bought Buick-, GMC-, Chevrolet-, Chrysler-, 

Dodge-, Jeep-, Ram-, Kia-, and Cadillac-brand cars containing Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their coconspirators during the Class Period. 

37. During the Class Period, Plaintiff McGrath purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff McGrath also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair 

and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff McGrath purchased and received both 

the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in Iowa. 

Plaintiff McGrath has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in Iowa during 

the Class Period. 

38. Plaintiff Table Rock is a Nebraska corporation, with its principal place of 

business in Bellevue, Nebraska. Plaintiff Table Rock is an authorized Hyundai dealer, who 

bought Hyundai-brand cars containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, during 

the Class Period. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 15 of 103 Pg ID 15
16 

39. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Table Rock purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Table Rock also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair 

and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Table Rock purchased and received both 

the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in 

Nebraska. Plaintiff Table Rock has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in 

Nebraska during the Class Period. 

40. Plaintiff Archer-Perdue is a Nebraska corporation, with its principal place of 

business in Omaha, Nebraska. Plaintiff Archer-Perdue is an authorized Suzuki dealer, who, 

during the Class Period, has bought Suzuki-brand cars containing Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their coconspirators. 

41. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Archer-Perdue purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Archer-Perdue also purchased Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its 

repair and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Archer-Perdue purchased and 

received both the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products in Nebraska. Plaintiff Archer-Perdue has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised 

its vehicles in Nebraska during the Class Period. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 16 of 103 Pg ID 16
17 

42. Plaintiff Bonneville is a New Hampshire corporation, with its principal place of 

business in Manchester, New Hampshire. Plaintiff Bonneville is an authorized Dodge, Chrysler, 

Jeep, and Ram dealer, who bought Chrysler-, Dodge-, Jeep-, and Ram-brand vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their coconspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

43. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Bonneville purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Bonneville also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair 

and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Bonneville purchased and received both 

the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in New 

Hampshire. Plaintiff Bonneville has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in 

New Hampshire during the Class Period. 

44. Plaintiff Holzhauer is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business 

in Nashville, Illinois. Plaintiff Holzhauer is an authorized Dodge, Chrysler, and Jeep dealer, who 

bought Dodge-, Chrysler-, and Jeep-brand vehicles containing Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their coconspirators during the Class Period. 

45. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Holzhauer purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Holzhauer also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 17 of 103 Pg ID 17
18 

Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair 

and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Holzhauer purchased and received both 

the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in Illinois. 

Plaintiff Holzhauer has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in Illinois 

during the Class Period. 

46. Plaintiff Pitre is a New Mexico corporation, with its principal place of business in 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. Plaintiff Pitre is an authorized Buick and GMC dealer, who bought 

Buick- and GMC-brand vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, during 

the Class Period. 

47. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Pitre purchased vehicles containing Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or their coconspirators. Plaintiff Pitre also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, 

manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair and service 

business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Pitre purchased and received both the aforementioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in New Mexico. 

Plaintiff Pitre has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in New Mexico 

during the Class Period. 

48. Plaintiff Patsy Lou is a Michigan corporation, with its principal place of business 

in Flint, Michigan. Plaintiff Patsy Lou is an authorized Chevrolet dealer, who bought Chevroletbrand vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 18 of 103 Pg ID 18
19 

the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, during the Class Period. 

49. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Patsy Lou purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Patsy Lou also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair 

and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Patsy Lou purchased and received both 

the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in 

Michigan. Plaintiff Patsy Lou has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in 

Michigan during the Class Period. 

50. Plaintiff John Greene is a North Carolina corporation, with its principal place of 

business in Morganton, North Carolina. Plaintiff John Greene is an authorized Chrysler, Dodge, 

Jeep, and Ram dealer, who bought Chrysler-, Dodge-, Jeep-, and Ram-brand vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their coconspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

51. During the Class Period, Plaintiff John Greene purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff John Greene also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair 

and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff John Greene purchased and received both 

the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in North 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 19 of 103 Pg ID 19
20 

Carolina. Plaintiff John Greene has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in 

North Carolina during the Class Period. 

52. Plaintiff Planet Nissan is an Arizona corporation, with its principal place of 

business in Flagstaff, Arizona. Plaintiff Planet Nissan is an authorized Nissan and Subaru dealer, 

who bought Nissan- and Subaru-brand vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators 

during the Class Period. 

53. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Planet Nissan purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Planet Nissan also purchased Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its 

repair and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Planet Nissan purchased and 

received both the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products in Arizona. Plaintiff Planet Nissan has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its 

vehicles in Arizona during the Class Period. 

54. Plaintiff Champion is a Nevada corporation, with its principal place of business in 

Reno, Nevada. Plaintiff Champion is an authorized Chevrolet dealer, who bought Chevroletbrand vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by 

the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

55. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Champion purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 20 of 103 Pg ID 20
21 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Champion also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair 

and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Champion purchased and received both 

the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in Nevada. 

Plaintiff Champion has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in Nevada 

during the Class Period. 

56. Plaintiff Commonwealth Motors is a Delaware corporation, with its principal 

place of business in Lawrence, Massachusetts. Plaintiff Commonwealth Motors is an authorized 

Chevrolet, Honda, and Kia dealer, who bought Chevrolet-, Honda-, and Kia-brand vehicles 

containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants 

or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

57. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Commonwealth Motors purchased vehicles 

containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more 

Defendants or their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Commonwealth Motors also purchased 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators, for its repair and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff 

Commonwealth Motors purchased and received both the afore-mentioned vehicles and 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in Massachusetts. Plaintiff Commonwealth 

Motors has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in Massachusetts during the 

Class Period. 

58. Plaintiff Commonwealth Volkswagen is a Massachusetts corporation with its 

principal place of business in Lawrence, Massachusetts. Plaintiff Commonwealth Volkswagen is 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 21 of 103 Pg ID 21
22 

an authorized Volkswagen dealer, who bought Volkswagen-brand vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their coconspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

59. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Commonwealth Volkswagen purchased 

vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or 

more Defendants or their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Commonwealth Volkswagen also purchased 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators, for its repair and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff 

Commonwealth Volkswagen purchased and received both the afore-mentioned vehicles and 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in Massachusetts. Plaintiff Commonwealth 

Volkswagen has also displayed, sold, serviced and advertised its vehicles in Massachusetts 

during the Class Period. 

60. Plaintiff Commonwealth Nissan is a Massachusetts corporation with its principal 

place of business in the Lawrence, Massachusetts. Plaintiff Commonwealth Nissan is an 

authorized Nissan dealer, who bought Nissan-brand vehicles containing Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their coconspirators during the Class Period. 

61. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Commonwealth Nissan purchased vehicles 

containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more 

Defendants or their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Commonwealth Nissan also purchased Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 22 of 103 Pg ID 22
23 

conspirators, for its repair and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff 

Commonwealth Nissan purchased and received both the afore-mentioned vehicles and 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in Massachusetts. Plaintiff Commonwealth 

Nissan has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in Massachusetts during the 

Class Period. 

62. Plaintiff Ramey is a West Virginia company with its principal place of business in 

Princeton, West Virginia. Plaintiff Ramey is an authorized Toyota, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and 

Ram dealer, who bought Toyota-, Chrysler-, Dodge-, Jeep-, and Ram-brand vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their coconspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

63. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Ramey purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Ramey also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair and 

service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Ramey purchased and received both the 

afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in West 

Virginia. Plaintiff Ramey has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in West 

Virginia during the Class Period. 

64. Plaintiff Thornhill is a West Virginia corporation, with its principal place of 

business in Chapmanville, West Virginia. Plaintiff Thornhill is an authorized Chevrolet, Buick, 

and GMC dealer, who bought Chevrolet-, Buick-, and GMC-brand vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 23 of 103 Pg ID 23
24 

conspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

65. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Thornhill purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Thornhill also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair 

and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Thornhill purchased and received both 

the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in West 

Virginia. Plaintiff Thornhill has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in 

West Virginia during the Class Period. 

66. Plaintiff Lakeland is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal place of business 

in Sheboygan, Wisconsin. Plaintiff Lakeland is an authorized Toyota, Honda, Mazda, and 

Subaru dealer who bought Toyota- Honda-, Mazda-, and Subaru-brand vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their coconspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

67. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Lakeland purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Lakeland also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair 

and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Lakeland purchased and received both 

the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 24 of 103 Pg ID 24
25 

Wisconsin. Plaintiff Lakeland has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in 

Wisconsin during the Class Period. 

68. Plaintiff Salt Lake Valley is a Utah company, with its principal place of business 

in Salt Lake City, Utah. Plaintiff Salt Lake Valley is an authorized Buick and GMC dealer, who 

bought Buick- and GMC-brand vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators 

during the Class Period. 

69. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Salt Lake Valley purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Salt Lake Valley also purchased Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its 

repair and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Salt Lake Valley purchased and 

received both the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products in Utah. Plaintiff Salt Lake Valley has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its 

vehicles in Utah during the Class Period. 

70. Plaintiff Capitol Chevrolet is an Oregon corporation, with its principal place of 

business in Salem, Oregon. Plaintiff Capitol Chevrolet is an authorized Chevrolet, Cadillac, and 

Subaru dealer, who bought Chevrolet-, Cadillac-, and Subaru-brand vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their coconspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 25 of 103 Pg ID 25
26 

71. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Capitol Chevrolet purchased vehicles 

containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more 

Defendants or their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Capitol Chevrolet also purchased Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their coconspirators, for its repair and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Capitol 

Chevrolet purchased and received both the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products in Oregon. Plaintiff Capitol Chevrolet has also displayed, sold, 

serviced, and advertised its vehicles in Oregon during the Class Period. 

72. Plaintiff Capitol Toyota is an Oregon corporation with its principal place of 

business in Salem, Oregon. Plaintiff Capitol Toyota is an authorized Toyota dealer, who bought 

Toyota-brand vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators during the 

Class Period. 

73. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Capitol Toyota purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Capitol Toyota also purchased Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its 

repair and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Capitol Toyota purchased and 

received both the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products in Oregon. Plaintiff Capitol Toyota has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised 

its vehicles in Oregon during the Class Period. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 26 of 103 Pg ID 26
27 

74. Plaintiff Beck is a South Dakota corporation, with its principal place of business 

in Pierre, South Dakota. Plaintiff Beck is an authorized Chevrolet and Cadillac dealer, who 

bought Chevrolet- and Cadillac-brand vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators 

during the Class Period. 

75. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Beck purchased vehicles containing Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or their coconspirators. Plaintiff Beck also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, 

manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair and service 

business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Beck purchased and received both the aforementioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in South Dakota. 

Plaintiff Beck has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in South Dakota 

during the Class Period. 

76. Plaintiff Wade is a Utah corporation, with its principal place of business in St. 

George, Utah. Plaintiff Wade is an authorized Toyota dealer, who bought Toyota-brand cars 

containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants 

or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

77. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Wade purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Wade also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair and 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 27 of 103 Pg ID 27
28 

service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Wade purchased and received both the aforementioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in Utah. Plaintiff 

Wade has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in Utah during the Class 

Period. 

78. Plaintiff Johnson is a Mississippi limited liability company, with its principal 

place of business in Meridian, Mississippi. Plaintiff Johnson is an authorized Toyota dealer, who 

bought Toyota-brand cars containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators during the 

Class Period. 

79. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Johnson purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Johnson also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair 

and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Johnson purchased and received both the 

afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in Mississippi. 

Plaintiff Johnson has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in Mississippi 

during the Class Period. 

80. Plaintiff Hartley is a New York corporation, with its principal place of business in 

Jamestown, New York. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Hartley has been an authorized 

Honda, Buick, Pontiac, and GM dealer, who bought Honda-, Buick-, Pontiac-, and GM-brand 

cars containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 28 of 103 Pg ID 28
29 

Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators. 

81. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Hartley purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Hartley also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair and 

service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Hartley purchased and received both the 

afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in New York. 

Plaintiff Hartley has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in New York 

during the Class Period. 

82. Plaintiff Lee Honda is a Maine corporation, with its principal place of business in 

Auburn, Maine. Plaintiff Lee Honda is an authorized Honda dealer, who bought Honda-brand 

cars containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

83. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Lee Honda purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Lee Honda also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair 

and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Lee Honda purchased and received both 

the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in Maine. 

Plaintiff Lee Honda has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in Maine 

during the Class Period. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 29 of 103 Pg ID 29
30 

84. Plaintiff Topsham is a Maine corporation, with its principal place of business in 

Topsham, Maine. Plaintiff Topsham is an authorized Toyota dealer, who bought Toyota-brand 

cars containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

85. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Topsham purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Topsham also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair 

and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Topsham purchased and received both 

the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in Maine. 

Plaintiff Topsham has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in Maine during 

the Class Period. 

86. Plaintiff Hazelwood is an Arkansas corporation, with its principal place of 

business in Hazelwood, Missouri. Plaintiff Hazelwood is an authorized Toyota dealer, who 

bought Toyota-brand cars containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators during the 

Class Period. 

87. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Hazelwood purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Hazelwood also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 30 of 103 Pg ID 30
31 

and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Hazelwood purchased and received both 

the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in 

Missouri. Plaintiff Hazelwood has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in 

Missouri during the Class Period. 

88. Plaintiff Landers Chrysler is an Arkansas corporation, with its principal place of 

business in Little Rock, Arkansas. Plaintiff Landers Chrysler is an authorized Chrysler, Dodge 

and Jeep dealer, who bought Chrysler-, Dodge- and Jeep-brand cars containing Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, 

as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants 

or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

89. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Landers Chrysler purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Landers Chrysler also purchased Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its 

repair and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Landers Chrysler purchased and 

received both the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products in Arkansas. Plaintiff Landers Chrysler has also displayed, sold, serviced, and 

advertised its vehicles in Arkansas during the Class Period. 

90. Plaintiff Cannon is a Mississippi corporation, with its principal place of business 

in Greenwood, Mississippi. Plaintiff Cannon is an authorized Chevrolet and Cadillac dealer, 

who bought Chevrolet- and Cadillac-brand cars containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 31 of 103 Pg ID 31
32 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators 

during the Class Period. 

91. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Cannon purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Cannon also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair and 

service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Cannon purchased and received both the 

afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in Mississippi. 

Plaintiff Cannon has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in Mississippi 

during the Class Period. 

92. Plaintiff Cannon Nissan is a Mississippi limited liability company with its 

principal place of business in Jackson, Mississippi. Plaintiff Cannon is an authorized Nissan 

dealer, who bought Nissan-brand cars containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators 

during the Class Period. 

93. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Cannon Nissan purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Cannon Nissan also purchased Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its 

repair and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Cannon purchased and received 

both the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 32 of 103 Pg ID 32
33 

Mississippi. Plaintiff Cannon has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in 

Mississippi during the Class Period. 

94. Plaintiff Hudson Nissan is a South Carolina limited liability company with its 

principal place of business in North Charleston, South Carolina. Plaintiff Hudson Nissan is an 

authorized Nissan dealer, who bought Nissan-brand cars containing Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their coconspirators during the Class Period. 

95. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Hudson Nissan purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Hudson Nissan also purchased Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its 

repair and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Hudson Nissan purchased and 

received both the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products in South Carolina. Plaintiff Hudson Nissan has also displayed, sold, serviced, and 

advertised its vehicles in South Carolina during the Class Period. 

96. Plaintiff Shearer is a Vermont corporation with its principal place of business in 

Rutland, Vermont. Plaintiff Shearer is an authorized Honda dealer, who bought Honda-brand 

vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

97. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Shearer purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 33 of 103 Pg ID 33
34 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Shearer also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair and 

service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Shearer purchased and received both the 

afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in Vermont. 

Plaintiff Shearer has also displayed, sold, serviced and advertised its vehicles in Vermont during 

the Class Period. 

98. Plaintiff Apex is a Vermont corporation with its principal place of business in 

South Burlington, Vermont. Plaintiff Apex is an authorized Acura dealer, who bought Acurabrand vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by 

the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

99. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Apex purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Apex also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair and 

service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Apex purchased and received both the aforementioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in Vermont. 

Plaintiff Apex has also displayed, sold, serviced and advertised its vehicles in Vermont during 

the Class Period. 

100. Plaintiff Gastonia Nissan is a North Carolina limited liability company with its 

principal place of business in Gastonia, North Carolina. Plaintiff Gastonia Nissan is an authorized 

Nissan dealer that purchased Nissan-brand cars containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 34 of 103 Pg ID 34
35 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators 

during the Class Period. 

101. During the Class Period Plaintiff Gastonia Nissan purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Gastonia Nissan also purchased Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its 

repair and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Gastonia Nissan purchased and 

received both the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products in North Carolina. Plaintiff Gastonia Nissan has also displayed, sold, serviced, and 

advertised its vehicles in North Carolina during the Class Period. 

102. Plaintiff Bristol Toyota is a Tennessee limited liability company with its principal 

place of business in Bristol, Tennessee. Plaintiff Bristol Toyota is an authorized Toyota dealer 

that purchased Toyota-brand cars containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators during the 

Class Period. 

103. During the Class Period Plaintiff Bristol Toyota purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Bristol Toyota also purchased Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its 

repair and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Bristol Toyota purchased and 

received both the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products in Tennessee. Plaintiff Bristol Toyota has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 35 of 103 Pg ID 35
36 

its vehicles in Tennessee during the Class Period. 

104. Plaintiff Hodges is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in 

Ferndale, Michigan. Plaintiff Hodges is an authorized Subaru dealer that purchased Subarubrand cars containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

105. During the Class Period Plaintiff Hodges purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Hodges also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators, for its repair and 

service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Hodges purchased and received both the 

afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in Michigan. 

Plaintiff Hodges has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in Michigan 

during the Class Period. 

106. Plaintiff Don Weir is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in 

Reno, Nevada. Plaintiff Weir is an authorized Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep dealer that purchased 

Chrysler-, Dodge- and Jeep-brand cars containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators 

during the Class Period. 

107. During the Class Period Plaintiff Weir purchased vehicles containing Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or their coconspirators. Plaintiff Weir also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 36 of 103 Pg ID 36
37 

manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Weir purchased and 

received both the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products in Nevada. Plaintiff Weir has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles 

in Nevada during the Class Period. 

108. Plaintiff John Lee is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in 

Panama City, Florida. Plaintiff John Lee is an authorized Nissan dealer, who bought Nissanbrand vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by 

the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

109. During the Class Period Plaintiff John Lee purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff John Lee also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators. Plaintiff John 

Lee purchased and received both the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products in Florida. Plaintiff John Lee has also displayed, sold, serviced, 

and advertised its vehicles in Florida during the Class Period. 

110. Plaintiff Empire Nissan is a California limited liability company with its principal 

place of business in Santa Rosa, California. Plaintiff Empire Nissan is an authorized Nissan 

dealer, who bought Nissan-brand vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators 

during the Class Period. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 37 of 103 Pg ID 37
38 

111. During the Class Period Plaintiff Empire Nissan purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or more Defendants or 

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Empire Nissan also purchased Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products, manufactured by one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators. Plaintiff 

Empire Nissan purchased and received both the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in California. Plaintiff John Lee has also displayed, sold, 

serviced, and advertised its vehicles in California during the Class Period. 

Defendants

112. Defendant Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. is a Japanese company with its principal 

place of business in Osaka, Japan. Defendant Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd.– directly and/or 

through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled – manufactured, marketed 

and/or sold Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products that were purchased throughout 

the United States, including in this District, during the Class Period. 

113. Defendant Toyo Automotive Parts (USA), Inc. is a Kentucky corporation with its 

principal place of business in Franklin, Kentucky. It is a subsidiary of and wholly owned and/or 

controlled by its parent, Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. Toyo Automotive Parts (USA), Inc. – 

directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled – manufactured, 

marketed, and/or sold Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products that were purchased 

throughout the United States, including in this District, during the Class Period. At all times 

during the Class Period, its activities in the United States were under the control and direction of 

its Japanese parent, which controlled its policies, sales and finances. 

AGENTS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS

114. Each Defendant acted as the principal of or agent for the other Defendant with 

respect to the acts, violations, and common course of conduct alleged herein. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 38 of 103 Pg ID 38
39 

115. Various persons, partnerships, sole proprietors, firms, corporations and 

individuals not named as defendants in this lawsuit, and individuals, the identities of which are 

presently unknown, have participated as co-conspirators with the Defendants in the offenses 

alleged in this Complaint, and have performed acts and made statements in furtherance of the 

conspiracy or in furtherance of the anticompetitive conduct. 

116. Whenever in this Complaint reference is made to any act, deed or transaction of 

any corporation or limited liability entity, the allegation means that the corporation or limited 

liability entity engaged in the act, deed or transaction by or through its officers, directors, agents, 

employees or representatives while they were actively engaged in the management, direction, 

control or transaction of the corporation’s or limited liability entity’s business or affairs. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. The Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products Industry

117. “Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products” are composed of rubber or 

plastic, and are used to cover the constant-velocity-joints of an automobile to protect the joints 

from contaminants. 

118. Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products are installed by component 

manufacturers, otherwise known as “Tier 1 Manufacturers” onto constant-velocity-joint systems. 

Constant-velocity-joint systems are installed by original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) in 

new cars as part of the automotive manufacturing process. Constant-velocity joint systems are 

also installed by OEMs in cars to replace worn out, defective or damaged constant-velocity-joint 

systems. 

119. Before ordering Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, Tier 1 

Manufacturers typically enter into Long Term Agreements (“LTAs”) with and/or issue requests 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 39 of 103 Pg ID 39
40 

for quotation (“RFQs”) to their suppliers. In response to the RFQs, the suppliers submit price 

quotes, or bids, to the Tier 1 Manufacturers. 

120. One such Tier 1 to whom Defendants sold Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products during the Class Period, is GKN PLLC. 

121. GKN PLLC’s main customers include Volvo, Volkswagen, Renault-Nissan, 

Fiat Chrysler, GM, Ford, Toyota, Mitsubishi, BMW and Tata. 

122. The Defendants and their co-conspirators supplied Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products to Tier 1 Manufacturers, who incorporated the Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products into constant-velocity-joint systems. The Tier1 

Manufacturers then supplied constant-velocity-joint systems to OEMs for installation in vehicles 

manufactured and sold in the United States and elsewhere. Defendants and their co-conspirators 

supplied Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products to Tier 1 Manufacturers for 

installation in vehicles manufactured and sold in the United States and elsewhere. 

123. Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Classes purchased Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products indirectly from the Defendants. By way of example, a dealership 

may indirectly purchase one or more Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product(s) from 

the Defendants as part of purchasing or leasing a new vehicle. A dealership may also indirectly 

purchase for replacement one or more Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product(s) from 

the Defendants when repairing a damaged vehicle or where one or more of the vehicle’s 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product(s) are defective. 

124. Replacement Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products sold to dealerships 

through OEMs are the same as the Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products installed in vehicles 

and are made by the same manufacturer who made the Bearings originally installed—that is 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 40 of 103 Pg ID 40
41 

the purpose of an OEM part, made by the OEM supplier. Such replacement parts are not the 

same as aftermarket parts, which are made by different manufacturers than those who 

manufactured the original parts. The prices of replacement Bearings were inflated by 

Defendants’ collusion. 

B. The Structure and Characteristics of the Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products Market Render the Conspiracy More Plausible

125. The structure and other characteristics of the Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products market in the United States are conducive to a price-fixing agreement, and have 

made collusion particularly attractive in this market. Specifically, the Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products market: (1) has high barriers to entry; and (2) has inelasticity of 

demand. 

1. The Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products Market Has 

High Barriers to Entry

126. A collusive arrangement that raises product prices above competitive levels 

would, under basic economic principles, attract new entrants seeking to benefit from the supracompetitive pricing. Where, however, there are significant barriers to entry, new entrants are 

less likely. Thus, barriers to entry help to facilitate the formation and maintenance of a cartel. 

127. There are substantial barriers that preclude, reduce, or make more difficult entry 

into the Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products market. A new entrant into the 

business would face costly and lengthy start-up costs, including multi-million dollar costs 

associated with manufacturing plants and equipment, energy, transportation, distribution 

infrastructure, and long-standing customer relationships. 

128. Likewise, any competitor needs advanced engineering and technological prowess 

in order to design a competitive Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 41 of 103 Pg ID 41
42 

129. The Defendants own several patents related to the manufacture of Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. These patents place a significant and costly burden on 

potential new entrants, who must avoid infringing on the patents when entering the market with a 

new product. 

130. In addition, customers cannot change Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products suppliers randomly after a supplier is initially selected because the OEMs design the 

features of their vehicles so that the Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products are then 

integrated with the other components the vehicle. Thus, the design must be synergized. It would 

be difficult for a new market entrant to do so. 

2. There is Inelasticity of Demand for Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products

131. “Elasticity” is a term used to describe the sensitivity of supply and demand to 

changes in one or the other. For example, demand is said to be “inelastic” if an increase in the 

price of a product results in only a small decline in the quantity sold of that product, if any. In 

other words, customers have nowhere to turn for alternative, cheaper products of similar quality, 

and so continue to purchase despite a price increase. 

132. For a cartel to profit from raising prices above competitive levels, demand must 

be relatively inelastic at competitive prices. Otherwise, increased prices would result in 

declining sales, revenues, and profits, as customers purchased substitute products or declined to 

buy altogether. Inelastic demand is a market characteristic that facilitates collusion, allowing 

producers to raise their prices without triggering customer substitution and lost sales revenue. 

133. Demand for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products is highly inelastic 

because there are no close substitutes for these products. In addition, customers must purchase 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 42 of 103 Pg ID 42
43 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products as an essential part of a vehicle, even if the 

prices are kept at a supra-competitive level. 

C. Government Investigations

134. A globally coordinated antitrust investigation is taking place in the United States, 

Europe, and Japan, aimed at suppliers of automotive parts. A Japan Fair Trade Commission 

(“JFTC”) official told a leading legal publication that automotive parts supplier investigations by 

the JFTC, DOJ and EC would continue to widen because the automotive industry as a whole 

comprises many sub-industries. He characterized the investigations being conducted by the U.S., 

European and Japanese antitrust authorities as “large and broad,” and he declined to deny that 

this “would be history’s largest case.” 

135. The DOJ Antitrust Division’s broad criminal investigation into illegal price-fixing 

and bid-rigging in the automotive parts industry is the largest criminal investigation the Antitrust 

Division has ever pursued. The ongoing cartel investigation of price-fixing and bid-rigging in 

the automobile parts industry has yielded more than $2.3 billion in criminal fines, already 

surpassing the total amount in criminal fines obtained by the DOJ’s Antitrust Division for all of 

last fiscal year. 

136. On November 26, 2013, the DOJ announced that Defendant Toyo Tire & Rubber 

Co., Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and pay a $120 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy 

to fix prices of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, and another automotive part, 

installed in automobiles sold in the United States and elsewhere. Toyo and its co-conspirators 

entered into and engaged in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition 

by agreeing to allocate sales of, and to fix, raise, and maintain the prices of Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products sold in the United States and elsewhere from at least as 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 43 of 103 Pg ID 43
44 

early as January 2006 and continuing until as late as September 2010 in violation of the Sherman 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 

137. According to the Information filed, Defendant Toyo and its co-conspirators 

carried out the Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products conspiracy by: 

(a) participating in meetings and engaging in discussions concerning prices 

for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products sold to GKN plc and its subsidiaries 

(collectively, “GKN”) in the United States and elsewhere; 

(b) agreeing during those meetings and discussions to allocate among the 

companies certain sales of certain Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products sold to 

GKN in the United States and elsewhere; 

(c) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and communications, on 

prices to be submitted to GKN in the United States and elsewhere; 

(d) discussing and exchanging prices for certain Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products sold to GKN in the United States and elsewhere; 

(e) submitting bids and price quotations to GKN in the United States and 

elsewhere in accordance with the agreements; 

(f) selling Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products1

 to GKN in the 

United States and elsewhere at collusive and noncompetitive prices; and 

(g) accepting payment for Automotive Constant-Velocity Joint Boot 

Products2

 sold to GKN in the United States and elsewhere at collusive and noncompetitive 

prices. 

 

1

 The Information refers to automotive anti-vibration rubber products instead of automotive constant-velocity-joint 

boot products however this appears to be a typo. 

2

 The Information refers to automotive anti-vibration rubber products instead of automotive constant-velocity-joint 

boot products however this appears to be a typo. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 44 of 103 Pg ID 44
45 

E. Guilty Pleas in Related Markets in the Automotive Industry

138. On January 30, 2012, the DOJ announced that Yazaki Corporation (“Yazaki”) had 

agreed to pay a $470 million fine and plead guilty to a three-count criminal information charging 

Yazaki with: (1) participating in a combination and conspiracy with its co-conspirators to 

suppress and eliminate competition in the automotive parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, 

and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of, automotive wire harnesses and related products 

sold to automobile manufacturers 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; (2) participating in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate 

competition in the automotive parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and 

maintain the prices of, instrument panel clusters sold to automobile manufacturers in the United 

States and elsewhere, from at least as early as December 2002 until at least February 2010, in 

violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1; and (3) participating in a combination and 

conspiracy with its co-conspirators to suppress and eliminate competition in the automotive parts 

industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of fuel senders 

sold to automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere from at least as early as 

March 2004 and continuing until at least February 2010 in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 1. 

139. In addition to Yazaki, five executives from Yazaki (all Japanese nationals) – 

Tsuneaki Hanamura, Ryoji Kawai, Shigeru Ogawa, Kazuhiko Kashimoto and Hisamitsu Takada 

– pleaded guilty to their participation in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in 

the automotive parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the 

prices of automotive wire harnesses sold to automobile manufacturers in the United States and 

elsewhere in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. These five Yazaki executives will 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 45 of 103 Pg ID 45
46 

each pay a $20,000 criminal fine and serve prison time ranging from 15 months to two years. 

The two-year sentences would be the longest term of imprisonment imposed on a foreign 

national voluntarily submitting to U.S. jurisdiction for a Sherman Act antitrust violation. 

140. On September 29, 2011, the DOJ announced that Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd. 

(“Furukawa”) had agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $200 million fine for its role in a criminal 

price-fixing and bid-rigging conspiracy involving the sale of automotive wire harnesses to 

automobile manufacturers. 

141. Three of Furukawa’s executives also pleaded guilty to the same conspiracy. The 

court sentenced two of the executives to 15 and 18 month prison sentences, to be served in the 

United States. 

142. A number of additional companies have pleaded guilty to fixing the prices of 

automotive parts, including: automotive wire harnesses; instrument panel clusters; fuel senders; 

heater control panels; occupant safety restraint systems; automotive bearings; windshield wipers; 

starters; radiators; alternators; ignition coils; anti-vibration rubber parts, automatic transmission 

fluid warmers; switches; steering angle sensors; HID ballasts; and automotive lamps. These 

companies include: Fujikura Ltd.; GS Electech, Inc.; TRW Deutschland Holding GmbH; 

Autoliv, Inc.; Nippon Seiki Co., Ltd.; JTEKT Corporation; Mitsuba Corporation; Mitsubishi 

Electric Corporation; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.; NSK Ltd.; Panasonic Corporation; T. 

RAD Co., Ltd.; Tokai Rika Co.; Valeo Japan Co., Ltd.; Yamashita Rubber Co., Ltd.; and 

Bridgestone Corporation. The majority of these violators pleaded guilty to engaging in bidrigging, price-fixing, and market allocation during the same time period as the Defendants with 

multiple OEMs as their targets, including Suzuki, Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Subaru, Chrysler, 

German manufacturers and unnamed automobile manufacturers. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 46 of 103 Pg ID 46
47 

143. The U.S. government has said its automotive parts cartel criminal investigation 

will continue and other suppliers could be charged.

144. “This criminal activity has a significant impact on the automotive manufacturers 

in the United States, Canada, Japan and Europe and has been occurring for at least a decade. 

The conduct had also affected commerce on a global scale in almost every market where 

automobiles are manufactured and/or sold,” said FBI’s Special Agent in Charge Andrew G. 

Arena. 

145. “When companies partner to control and price fix bids or contracts, it undermines 

the foundation of the United States’ economic system,” Arena also said. “The FBI is committed 

to aggressively pursuing any company involved in antitrust crimes.” 

146. On February 15, 2013, Scott Hammond, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in 

the Antitrust Division, discussed the DOJ’s ongoing automotive parts investigation in a Thomson 

Reuters article. He said “[t]he investigation is broader than what we’ve announced so far . . . . 

[The investigation] is still very much ongoing, but it already appears to be the biggest criminal 

antitrust investigation that we’ve ever encountered. I say the biggest with respect to the impact 

on U.S. businesses and consumers, and the number of companies and executives that are 

subject to the investigation.” (emphasis added). 

147. On July 10, 2013, the European Commission fined four wire harness suppliers, 

Yazaki, S-Y Systems, Furukawa Electric and Leoni, a total of $182 million for taking part in 

cartels that affected Toyota, Nissan, Honda and Renault. 

148. On September 11, 2013, two Fujikura, Ltd. executives were indicted for 

conspiring to fix the price of wire harness assemblies to Fuji Heavy Industries, the maker of 

Subaru automobiles. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 47 of 103 Pg ID 47
48 

149. On September 26, 2013, nine additional Japanese automotive suppliers, including 

Mitsuba Corporation, and two more executives agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy charges and 

pay more than $740 million in fines for their roles in rigging the prices of 30 products. 

150. The diagram below, which was prepared by the DOJ, illustrates the recent guilty 

pleas and the corresponding automotive parts to which the various manufacturers have admitted 

to price-fixing. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 48 of 103 Pg ID 48
49 

151. On October 9, 2013, Takata Corporation announced that it had agreed to pay 

$71.3 million to settle antitrust charges brought by the United States federal prosecutors for its 

part in a conspiracy to price-fix seatbelts. 

152. On November 27, 2013, Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. agreed to pay a $1.44 million 

criminal fine and plead guilty to price-fixing allegations involving high-intensity discharge 

(HID) lamp ballasts sold to automakers in the United States and elsewhere. 

153. On January 16, 2014, Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd. agreed to pay a $56.6 million 

criminal fine and plead guilty for its roles in separate price-fixing conspiracies involving 

automobile lighting fixtures and automotive high-intensity discharge (HID) lamp ballasts 

installed in cars sold in the United States and elsewhere. 

154. On February 3, 2014, Aisan Industry Co. Ltd. agreed to pay a $6.86 million 

criminal fine and plead guilty for its part in a price-fixing conspiracy involving electronic throttle

bodies. 

155. On February 13, 2014, Bridgestone Corp. agreed to pay a $425 million criminal 

fine and plead guilty for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices of automotive anti-vibration rubber 

parts. 

156. On April 23, 2014, Showa Corp. agreed to pay a $19.9 million criminal fine and 

plead guilty for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices of pinion-assist type electric powered 

steering assemblies. 

157. To date, twenty-seven companies and thirty-three executives have been charged 

in the Antitrust Division’s ongoing investigation into price fixing and bid rigging in the auto 

parts industry. Each of the twenty-seven companies have either pleaded guilty or have agreed to 

plead guilty and have agreed to pay approximately $2.3 billion in criminal fines. Twenty-three 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 49 of 103 Pg ID 49
50 

of the thirty-three executives have been sentenced to serve time in U.S. prisons or have entered 

into plea agreements. 

D. Likely Existence of an “Amnesty Applicant.”

158. The Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act (“ACPERA”) 

provides leniency benefits for a participant in a price-fixing conspiracy that voluntarily discloses 

its conduct to the Department of Justice. In most recent cases in which guilty pleas for pricefixing conduct have been obtained, there has been a cooperating party that has been accepted into 

the DOJ’s ACPERA program as an “amnesty applicant.” One of the leniency benefits for a 

conspirator that is accepted into the ACPERA program is that it is not charged with a criminal 

offense and is not required to plead guilty to criminal charges. 

159. In light of the guilty plea in this case, guilty pleas in related automotive parts 

antitrust cases and the DOJ’s ongoing investigation into the industry, it is reasonable for this 

Court to infer that there is an ACPERA “amnesty applicant” in this case. 

F. Damage to Plaintiffs and Other Automobile Dealers Caused by Defendants’

Illegal Activities

160. Defendants’ conspiracy resulted in Defendants charging inflated prices to firms 

who directly purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products from them and in 

those purchasers raising their prices to subsequent purchasers. 

161. Having paid higher prices for components of the cars they sold to Plaintiffs and 

the Classes and the Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products they sold to Plaintiffs and 

the Classes, firms who sold such Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products and 

vehicles passed Defendants’ overcharges on to Plaintiffs and the Classes. 

162. Plaintiffs and the Classes are entitled to the overcharges they paid for Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 50 of 103 Pg ID 50
51 

163. Plaintiffs have standing and have suffered damage compensable by indirect 

purchaser laws and they and members of the classes they seek to represent have sustained 

significant damage and injury as a result of Defendants’ conspiracy. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

164. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and as a class action under 

Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking equitable and injunctive 

relief on behalf of the following class (the “Nationwide Class”): 

All automobile dealers that, during the Class Period, (a) purchased 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured 

or sold by a Defendant or any current or former subsidiary or 

affiliate thereof or any co-conspirator, or (b) purchased vehicles 

containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

manufactured or sold by a Defendant or any current or former 

subsidiary, affiliate thereof or co-conspirator. 

165. Plaintiffs also bring this action on behalf of themselves and as a class action under 

Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking damages pursuant to the 

antitrust, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and consumer protection laws of the states 

whose laws are set forth in the Second and Third Claims below, as well as the unjust enrichment 

laws of Missouri, Massachusetts and Illinois. The states whose laws are set forth in the Second 

and Third Claims below, as well as Missouri, Massachusetts, and Illinois, are collectively 

referred to as the “Indirect Purchaser States.” These claims are brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of 

themselves and entities in the Indirect Purchaser States listed in the Second, Third and Fourth 

Claims as follows (the “Damages Class”): 

All automobile dealers, in the Indirect Purchaser States, that, during the 

Class Period (a) purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products manufactured or sold by one of the Defendants or any current or 

former subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator or (b) 

purchased vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products manufactured or sold by one of the Defendants or any current or 

former subsidiary, affiliate or co-conspirator thereof. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 51 of 103 Pg ID 51
52 

166. The Nationwide Class and the Damages Class are referred to herein as the 

“Classes.” Excluded from the Classes are the Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries 

and affiliates, any co-conspirators, federal governmental entities and instrumentalities of the 

federal government, states and their subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities, any judicial 

officer presiding over this matter, persons who purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products directly, and persons in the End-Payor Class, as defined in the End-Payor 

complaint. 

167. While Plaintiffs do not know the exact number of the members of the Classes, 

Plaintiffs believe there are (at least) thousands of members in each Class. 

168. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Classes. This is 

particularly true given the nature of the Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ conspiracy, which 

was generally applicable to all the members of both Classes, thereby making appropriate relief 

with respect to the Classes as a whole. Such questions of law and fact common to the Classes 

include, but are not limited to: 

(a) Whether the Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a 

combination and conspiracy among themselves to fix, raise, maintain or 

stabilize the prices of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

sold in the United States; 

(b) The identity of the participants of the alleged conspiracy; 

(c) The duration of the alleged conspiracy and the acts carried out by the 

Defendants and their co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy; 

(d) Whether the alleged conspiracy violated the Sherman Act, as alleged in 

the First Claim for Relief; 

(e) Whether the alleged conspiracy violated state antitrust and unfair 

competition law, and/or state consumer protection law, as alleged in the 

Second and Third Claims for Relief; 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 52 of 103 Pg ID 52
53 

(f) Whether the Defendants unjustly enriched themselves to the detriment of 

the Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes, thereby entitling Plaintiffs 

and the members of the Classes to disgorgement of all benefits derived by 

the Defendants, as alleged in the Fourth Claim for Relief; 

(g) Whether the conduct of the Defendants and their co-conspirators, as 

alleged in this Complaint, caused injury to the business or property of 

Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes; 

(h) The effect of the alleged conspiracy on the prices of Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products sold in the United States during the Class 

Period; 

(i) Whether Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes had any reason to know 

or suspect the conspiracy, or any means to discover the conspiracy; 

(j) Whether the Defendants and their co-conspirators fraudulently concealed 

the conspiracy’s existence from Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes; 

(k) The appropriate injunctive and related equitable relief for the Nationwide 

Class; and 

(l) The appropriate class-wide measure of damages for the Damages Class. 

169. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Classes, and 

Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Classes. Plaintiffs and all 

members of the Classes are similarly affected by the Defendants’ wrongful conduct in that they 

paid artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products purchased 

indirectly from the Defendants and/or their co-conspirators. 

170. Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the same common course of conduct giving rise to 

the claims of the other members of the Classes. Plaintiffs’ interests are coincident with, and not 

antagonistic to, those of the other members of the Classes. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel 

who are competent and experienced in the prosecution of antitrust and class action litigation. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 53 of 103 Pg ID 53
54 

171. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Classes 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, including legal and factual 

issues relating to liability and damages. 

172. Class action treatment is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication 

of the controversy, in that, among other things, such treatment will permit a large number of 

similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, 

efficiently and without the unnecessary duplication of evidence, effort and expense that 

numerous individual actions would engender. The benefits of proceeding through the class 

mechanism, including providing injured persons or entities with a method for obtaining redress 

for claims that might not be practicable to pursue individually, substantially outweigh any 

difficulties that may arise in the management of this class action. 

173. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Classes would 

create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications, establishing incompatible standards of 

conduct for the Defendants. 

PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASSES SUFFERED ANTITRUST INJURY

174. The Defendants’ price-fixing conspiracy had the following effects, among others: 

(a) Price competition has been restrained or eliminated with respect to 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products; 

(b) The prices of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products have 

been fixed, raised, maintained, or stabilized at artificially inflated levels; 

(c) Indirect purchasers of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

have been deprived of free and open competition; 

(d) Defendants charged direct purchasers of their Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products inflated prices as a result of their conspiracy; 

(e) Having paid higher prices for components of the cars they sold to 

Plaintiffs and the Classes and the Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products they sold to Plaintiffs and the Classes, firms who sold 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 54 of 103 Pg ID 54
55 

Defendants’ Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products and 

vehicles to Plaintiffs and the Classes passed Defendants’ overcharges on 

to them; 

(f) Defendants’ overcharges passed through each level of distribution as they 

traveled to Plaintiffs and the Classes; 

(g) Automobile dealers purchasing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products and vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products have been deprived of free and open competition; and 

(h) Indirect purchasers of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

paid artificially inflated prices. 

175. During the Class Period, Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes paid 

supracompetitive prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, as a result of the 

Defendants’ conspiracy. 

176. An increase in the prices of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

caused an increase in the price of vehicles during the class period. 

177. Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products comprise a significant portion 

of the price of a vehicle. 

178. The markets for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products and vehicles 

are inextricably linked and intertwined because the market for Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products exists to serve the vehicle market. Without the vehicles, the Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products have little to no value because they have no independent 

utility. Indeed, the demand for vehicles creates the demand for Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products. As stated in the 2010 Annual Report of Lear Corporation, an automobile 

parts supplier: “Our sales are driven by the number of vehicles produced by the automotive 

manufacturers, which is ultimately dependent on consumer fleet demand for automotive 

vehicles.” 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 55 of 103 Pg ID 55
56 

179. Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products are identifiable, discrete 

physical products that remain essentially unchanged when incorporated into a vehicle. As a 

result, Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products follow a traceable physical chain of 

distribution from the Defendants to Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes, and any costs 

attributable to Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products can be traced through the 

chain of distribution to Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes. 

180. Just as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products can be physically 

traced through the supply chain, so can their price be traced to show that changes in the prices 

paid by direct purchasers of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products affect prices 

paid by indirect purchasers of new motor vehicles containing Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products purchased for repair 

purposes. 

181. Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products have their own part numbers, 

which permit them to be tracked. 

182. Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products are pieces of sophisticated 

equipment that are necessary to operate a vehicle. 

183. Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products can be removed from a 

finished vehicle and replaced. 

184. The Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products subject to the 

Defendants’ conspiracy and at issue in this lawsuit only have one use: to be inserted into 

vehicles. Whether Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products are sold by themselves or 

in vehicles, their purpose is to be inserted into vehicles. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 56 of 103 Pg ID 56
57 

185. The purpose of the conspiratorial conduct of the Defendants and their coconspirators was to raise, fix, rig or stabilize the price of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products and, as a direct and foreseeable result, the price of new motor vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products and the price of Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products purchased for repair purposes. Economists have developed 

techniques to isolate and understand the relationship between one “explanatory” variable and a 

“dependent” variable in those cases when changes in the dependent variable are explained by 

changes in a multitude of variables, even when all such variables may be changing 

simultaneously. That analysis - called regression analysis - is commonly used in the real world 

and in litigation to determine the impact of a price increase on one cost in a product (or service) 

that is an assemblage of costs. Thus, an economist can isolate and identify only the impact of an 

increase in the price of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products on prices for new 

motor vehicles even though such products contain a number of other components whose prices 

may be changing over time. A regression model can explain how variation in the price of 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products affects changes in the price of new motor 

vehicles. In such models, the price of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products would 

be treated as an independent or explanatory variable. The model can isolate how changes in the 

price of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products impact the price of new motor 

vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products while controlling for the 

impact of other price-determining factors. 

186. The precise amount of the overcharge impacting the prices of new motor vehicles 

containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products can be measured and quantified. 

Commonly used and well-accepted economic models can be used to measure both the extent and 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 57 of 103 Pg ID 57
58 

the amount of the supracompetitive charge passed through the chain of distribution. Thus, the 

economic harm to Plaintiffs and class members can be quantified. 

187. By reason of the violations of the antitrust law alleged herein, Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Classes have sustained injury to their businesses or property, having paid higher 

prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products than they would have paid in the 

absence of the Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ illegal contract, combination, or 

conspiracy, and, as a result, have suffered damages in an amount presently undetermined. This 

is an antitrust injury of the type that the antitrust laws were meant to punish and prevent, and 

Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ damages are measurable. 

PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE NOT BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

A. The Statute of Limitations Did Not Begin to Run Because Plaintiffs Did Not 

And Could Not Discover Their Claims 

188. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations set forth above. 

189. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes had no knowledge of the combination 

or conspiracy alleged herein, or of facts sufficient to place them on inquiry notice of the claims 

set forth herein, until (at the earliest) November 26, 2013, the date that the DOJ publicly 

announced Defendant Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd.’s anticipated guilty plea. 

190. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes are indirect purchasers who purchased 

automobiles or purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products to replace or repair 

damaged or defective Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in their automobiles. 

They had no direct contact or interaction with the Defendants in this case and had no means from 

which they could have discovered the combination and conspiracy described in this Complaint 

before November 26, 2013, the date that the DOJ publicly announced Defendant Toyo Tire & 

Rubber Co., Ltd.’s anticipated guilty plea. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 58 of 103 Pg ID 58
59 

191. No information in the public domain was available to the Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Classes prior to November 26, 2013, the date that the DOJ publicly announced 

Defendant Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd.’s anticipated guilty plea, that revealed sufficient 

information to suggest that the Defendants were involved in a criminal conspiracy to price-fix 

and rig bids for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. Plaintiffs and the members 

of the Classes had no means of obtaining any facts or information concerning any aspect of the 

Defendants’ dealings with OEMs or other direct purchasers, much less the fact that they and their 

co-conspirators had engaged in the combination and conspiracy alleged herein. 

192. For these reasons, the statute of limitations as to Plaintiffs’ and the Classes’ 

claims did not begin to run, and has been tolled with respect to the claims that Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Classes have alleged in this Complaint. 

B. Fraudulent Concealment Tolled the Statute of Limitations 

193. In the alternative, application of the doctrine of fraudulent concealment tolled the 

statute of limitations on the claims asserted herein by Plaintiffs and the Classes. Plaintiffs and 

the members of the Classes did not discover, and could not discover through the exercise of 

reasonable diligence, the existence of the conspiracy alleged herein until November 26, 2013, the 

date that the DOJ publicly announced Defendant Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd.’s anticipated 

guilty plea. 

194. Because the Defendants’ agreements, understandings, and conspiracies were kept 

secret until November 26, 2013, Plaintiffs and members of the Classes were unaware before that 

time of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, and they did not know before then that they were 

paying supracompetitive prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

throughout the United States during the Class Period. No information, actual or constructive, was 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 59 of 103 Pg ID 59
60 

ever made available to Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes that indicated to Plaintiffs that 

they were being injured by the Defendants’ unlawful conduct. 

195. The affirmative acts of the Defendants alleged herein, including acts in 

furtherance of the conspiracy, were wrongfully concealed and carried out in a manner that 

precluded detection. 

196. Defendants had secret communications to collusively fix prices, rig bids, and 

allocate markets for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

197. Defendants also concealed their conspiracy by submitting bids to customers, to 

give the appearance of competition, despite having already determined among themselves who 

would win each bid. 

198. By its very nature, the Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ anticompetitive 

conspiracy was inherently self-concealing. Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

are not exempt from antitrust regulation, and thus, before November 26, 2013, Plaintiffs 

reasonably considered it to be a competitive industry. Accordingly, a reasonable person under 

the circumstances would not have been alerted to begin to investigate the legitimacy of the 

Defendants’ Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products prices before November 26, 

2013. 

199. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes could not have discovered the alleged 

contract, conspiracy or combination at an earlier date by the exercise of reasonable diligence 

because of the deceptive practices and techniques of secrecy employed by the Defendants and 

their co-conspirators to avoid detection of, and fraudulently conceal, their contract, combination, 

or conspiracy. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 60 of 103 Pg ID 60
61 

200. Because the alleged conspiracy was both self-concealing and affirmatively 

concealed by the Defendants and their co-conspirators, Plaintiffs and members of the Classes had 

no knowledge of the alleged conspiracy, or of any facts or information that would have caused a 

reasonably diligent person to investigate whether a conspiracy existed, until November 26, 2013, 

the date that the DOJ publicly announced Defendant Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd.’s anticipated 

guilty plea. 

201. For these reasons, the statute of limitations applicable to Plaintiffs’ and the 

Classes’ claims was tolled and did not begin to run until November 26, 2013. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act 

(on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class) 

202. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs. 

203. The Defendants and unnamed co-conspirators entered into and engaged in a 

contract, combination, or conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 

of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1). 

204. The acts done by the Defendants as part of, and in furtherance of, their and their 

co-conspirators’ contract, combination, or conspiracy were authorized, ordered, or done by their 

officers, agents, employees, or representatives while actively engaged in the management of their 

affairs. 

205. At least as early as January 2006, and continuing until at least the filing of this 

Complaint, the exact dates being unknown to Plaintiffs, the Defendants and their co-conspirators 

entered into a continuing agreement, understanding and conspiracy in restraint of trade to 

artificially fix, raise, stabilize, and control prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products, thereby creating anticompetitive effects. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 61 of 103 Pg ID 61
62 

206. The anticompetitive acts were intentionally directed at the United States market 

for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products and had a substantial and foreseeable 

effect on interstate commerce by raising and fixing prices for Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products throughout the United States. 

207. The conspiratorial acts and combinations have caused unreasonable restraints in 

the market for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

208. As a result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and other similarly 

situated indirect purchasers in the Nationwide Class who purchased Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products have been harmed by being forced to pay inflated, 

supracompetitive prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

209. In formulating and carrying out the alleged agreement, understanding and 

conspiracy, the Defendants and their co-conspirators did those things that they combined and 

conspired to do, including but not limited to the acts, practices and course of conduct set forth 

herein. 

210. The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ conspiracy had the following effects, 

among others: 

(a) Price competition in the market for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products has been restrained, suppressed, and/or eliminated in the United States; 

(b) Prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products sold by the 

Defendants and their co-conspirators have been fixed, raised, maintained, and stabilized at 

artificially high, non-competitive levels throughout the United States; and 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 62 of 103 Pg ID 62
63 

(c) Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class who purchased 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products indirectly from the Defendants and their coconspirators have been deprived of the benefits of free and open competition. 

211. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class have been injured and will 

continue to be injured in their business and property by paying more for Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products purchased indirectly from the Defendants and their co-conspirators 

than they would have paid and will pay in the absence of the conspiracy. 

212. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class will continue to be subject to 

Defendants' price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market allocations, which will deprive Plaintiffs and 

members of the Nationwide Class of the benefits of free competition, including competitivelypriced Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products and vehicles. 

213. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class will continue to lose funds due to 

overpayment for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products and vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products because they are required to purchase 

vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products to continue to operate their 

businesses. 

214. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class continue to purchase vehicles and 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, on a regular basis. 

215. Vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products continue to be 

sold at inflated and supracompetitive prices. 

216. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class will be at the mercy of 

Defendants' unlawful conduct until the Court orders an injunction. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 63 of 103 Pg ID 63
64 

217. The alleged contract, combination, or conspiracy is a per se violation of the 

federal antitrust laws. 

218. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class are entitled to an injunction 

against the Defendants, preventing and restraining the violations alleged herein. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of State Antitrust Statutes 

(on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Damages Class) 

219. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs. 

220. From as early as January 2006 until at least the filing of this Complaint, the 

Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a continuing contract, combination or 

conspiracy with respect to the sale of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in 

unreasonable restraint of trade and commerce and in violation of the various state antitrust 

statutes set forth below. 

221. The contract, combination, or conspiracy consisted of an agreement among the 

Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix, raise, inflate, stabilize, and/or maintain at artificially 

supracompetitive levels the prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products and to 

allocate customers for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in the United States. 

222. In formulating and effectuating this conspiracy, the Defendants and their coconspirators performed acts in furtherance of the combination and conspiracy, including: 

(a) participating in meetings and conversations among themselves in the 

United States and elsewhere during which they agreed to price Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products at certain levels, and otherwise to fix, increase, inflate, maintain, or stabilize

effective prices paid by Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class with respect to Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products sold in the United States; 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 64 of 103 Pg ID 64
65 

(b) allocating customers and markets for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products in the United States in furtherance of their agreements; and 

(c) participating in meetings and conversations among themselves in the 

United States and elsewhere to implement, adhere to, and police the unlawful agreements they 

reached. 

223. The Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in the actions described above 

for the purpose of carrying out their unlawful agreements to fix, maintain, increase, or stabilize 

prices and to allocate customers with respect to Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products. 

224. The Defendants’ anticompetitive acts described above were knowing and willful 

and constitute violations or flagrant violations of the following state antitrust statutes. 

225. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Arizona Revised Statutes, §§ 44-1401, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Arizona; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Arizona; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected Arizona commerce. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 65 of 103 Pg ID 65
66 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 44-1401, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all forms of relief available under Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 44-

1401, et seq.

226. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the California Business and Professions Code, §§ 16700, et seq. 

(a) During the Class Period, the Defendants and their co-conspirators entered 

into and engaged in a continuing unlawful trust in restraint of the trade and commerce described 

above in violation of Section 16720, California Business and Professions Code. The Defendants 

have acted in violation of Section 16720 to fix, raise, stabilize, and maintain prices of, and 

allocate markets for, Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products at supracompetitive 

levels. 

(b) The aforesaid violations of Section 16720, California Business and 

Professions Code, consisted, without limitation, of a continuing unlawful trust and concert of 

action among the Defendants and their co-conspirators, the substantial terms of which were to 

fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the prices of, and to allocate markets for, Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(c) For the purpose of forming and effectuating the unlawful trust, the 

Defendants and their co-conspirators have done those things which they combined and conspired 

to do, including but in no way limited to the acts, practices and course of conduct set forth above 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 66 of 103 Pg ID 66
67 

and the following: (1) Fixing, raising, stabilizing, and pegging the price of Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products; and (2) Allocating among themselves the production of 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(d) The combination and conspiracy alleged herein has had, inter alia, the 

following effects: (1) Price competition in the sale of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products has been restrained, suppressed, and/or eliminated in the State of California; (2) Prices 

for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products sold by the Defendants and their coconspirators have been fixed, raised, stabilized, and pegged at artificially high, non-competitive 

levels in the State of California and throughout the United States; and (3) Those who purchased 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products directly or indirectly from the Defendants 

and their co-conspirators have been deprived of the benefit of free and open competition. 

(e) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property in 

that they paid more for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products than they otherwise 

would have paid in the absence of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct. As a result of the 

Defendants’ violation of Section 16720 of the California Business and Professions Code, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek treble damages and their cost of suit, 

including a reasonable attorney’s fee, pursuant to Section 16750(a) of the California Business 

and Professions Code. 

227. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the District of Columbia Code Annotated §§ 28-4501, et seq.

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 67 of 103 Pg ID 67
68 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout the District of Columbia; (2) 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and 

stabilized at artificially high levels throughout the District of Columbia; (3) Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected District of Columbia commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of District of Columbia Code Ann. §§ 28-4501, et seq. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all forms of relief available 

under District of Columbia Code Ann. §§ 28-4501, et seq.

228. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Hawaii Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 480-1, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Hawaii; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Hawaii; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were 

deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 68 of 103 Pg ID 68
69 

paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products and vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected Hawaii commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

229. By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements in 

restraint of trade in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 480-4, et seq. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all forms of relief available 

under Hawaii Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 480-4, et seq. 

230. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Illinois Antitrust Act, 740 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/1, et seq.

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Illinois; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Illinois; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were 

deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products and vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected Illinois commerce. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 69 of 103 Pg ID 69
70 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of 740 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/1, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all forms of relief available under 740 Illinois 

Compiled Statutes 10/1, et seq.

3

231. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Iowa Code §§ 553.1, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Iowa; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Iowa; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were 

deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected Iowa commerce. 

 

3

 Dealership Plaintiffs recognize that their claims under the Illinois Antitrust Act were 

dismissed in the Wire Harness action. Dealership Plaintiffs assert this claim here, individually 

and collectively, to preserve it for appeal. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 70 of 103 Pg ID 70
71 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of Iowa Code §§ 553.1, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all forms of relief available under Iowa Code §§ 553.1, et 

seq.

232. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, §§ 50-101, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Kansas; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Kansas; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were 

deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected Kansas commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 71 of 103 Pg ID 71
72 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of Kansas Stat. Ann. §§ 50-101, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class seek all forms of relief available under Kansas Stat. Ann. §§ 

50-101, et seq.

233. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Maine Revised Statutes, Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. 10, §§ 1101, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Maine; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Maine; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were 

deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected Maine commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. 10, §§ 1101, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Maine Rev. Stat. 

Ann. 10, §§ 1101, et seq.

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 72 of 103 Pg ID 72
73 

234. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated §§ 445.771, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Michigan; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Michigan; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected Michigan commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of Michigan Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 445.771, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Michigan Comp. 

Laws Ann. §§ 445.771, et seq. 

235. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Minnesota Annotated Statutes §§ 325D.49, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 73 of 103 Pg ID 73
74 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Minnesota; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Minnesota; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected Minnesota commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of Minnesota Stat. §§ 325D.49, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Minnesota Stat. §§ 325D.49, 

et seq. 

236. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Mississippi Code Annotated §§ 75-21-1, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Mississippi; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Mississippi; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 74 of 103 Pg ID 74
75 

Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected Mississippi commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of Mississippi Code Ann. §§ 75-21-1, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Mississippi Code 

Ann. §§ 75-21-1, et seq.

237. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Nebraska Revised Statutes §§ 59-801, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Nebraska; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Nebraska; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected Nebraska commerce. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 75 of 103 Pg ID 75
76 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of Nebraska Revised Statutes §§ 59-801, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Nebraska Revised 

Statutes §§ 59-801, et seq.

238. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 598A.010, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Nevada; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Nevada; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected Nevada commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 76 of 103 Pg ID 76
77 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of Nevada Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 598A.010, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Nevada Rev. Stat. 

Ann. §§ 598A.010, et seq.

239. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes §§ 356:1, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout New Hampshire; (2) 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and 

stabilized at artificially high levels throughout New Hampshire; (3) Plaintiffs and members of 

the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members 

of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected New Hampshire commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of New Hampshire Revised Statutes §§ 356:1, et seq. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under New 

Hampshire Revised Statutes §§ 356:1, et seq. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 77 of 103 Pg ID 77
78 

240. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated §§ 57-1-1, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout New Mexico; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout New Mexico; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected New Mexico commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of New Mexico Stat. Ann. §§ 57-1-1, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under New Mexico Stat. 

Ann. §§ 57-1-1, et seq. 

241. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the New York General Business Laws §§ 340, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 78 of 103 Pg ID 78
79 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout New York; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout New York; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products when they purchased vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products, or purchased products that were otherwise of lower quality than they would have 

been absent the Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ illegal acts, or were unable to purchase 

products that they would have otherwise have purchased absent the illegal conduct. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected New York commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of the New York Donnelly Act, §§ 340, et seq. The conduct set 

forth above is a per se violation of the Act. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class seek all relief available under New York Gen. Bus. Law §§ 340, et seq. 

242. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the North Carolina General Statutes §§ 75-1, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout North Carolina; (2) 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 79 of 103 Pg ID 79
80 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and 

stabilized at artificially high levels throughout North Carolina; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of 

the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected North Carolina commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of North Carolina Gen. Stat. §§ 75-1, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under North Carolina Gen. 

Stat. §§ 75-1, et. seq. 

243. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the North Dakota Century Code §§ 51-08.1-01, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout North Dakota; (2) 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and 

stabilized at artificially high levels throughout North Dakota; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 80 of 103 Pg ID 80
81 

the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on North Dakota commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of North Dakota Cent. Code §§ 51-08.1-01, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under North Dakota Cent. 

Code §§ 51-08.1-01, et seq. 

244. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 646.705, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Oregon; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Oregon; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on Oregon commerce. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 81 of 103 Pg ID 81
82 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 646.705, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Oregon Revised 

Statutes §§ 646.705, et seq. 

245. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the South Dakota Codified Laws §§ 37-1-3.1, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout South Dakota; (2) 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and 

stabilized at artificially high levels throughout South Dakota; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of 

the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on South Dakota commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 82 of 103 Pg ID 82
83 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of South Dakota Codified Laws Ann. §§ 37-1, et seq. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under South 

Dakota Codified Laws Ann. §§ 37-1, et seq. 

246. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 47-25-101, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Tennessee; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Tennessee; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on Tennessee commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of Tennessee Code Ann. §§ 47-25-101, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Tennessee Code 

Ann. §§ 47-25-101, et seq. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 83 of 103 Pg ID 83
84 

247. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Utah Code Annotated §§ 76-10-911, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Utah; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Utah; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were 

deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on Utah commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of Utah Code Annotated §§ 76-10-911, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Utah Code 

Annotated §§ 76-10-911, et seq. 

248. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of 9 Vermont Stat. Ann. §§ 2453, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 84 of 103 Pg ID 84
85 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Vermont; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Vermont; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on Vermont commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of Vermont Stat. Ann. 9 §§ 2453, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under 9 Vermont Stat. Ann. §§ 2453, 

et seq. Plaintiffs are entitled to relief pursuant to 9 Vermont Ann. Stat. § 2465 and any other 

applicable authority. 

249. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the West Virginia Code §§ 47-18-1, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout West Virginia; (2) 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and 

stabilized at artificially high levels throughout West Virginia; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 85 of 103 Pg ID 85
86 

Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of 

the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on West Virginia commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of West Virginia Code §§ 47-18-1, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under West Virginia Code 

§§ 47-18-1, et seq. 

250. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Wisconsin Statutes §§ 133.01, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Wisconsin; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Wisconsin; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 86 of 103 Pg ID 86
87 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on Wisconsin commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of Wisconsin Stat. §§ 133.01, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Wisconsin Stat. §§ 133.01, et seq. 

251. Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class in each of the above states have 

been injured in their business and property by reason of the Defendants’ and their coconspirators’ unlawful combination, contract, conspiracy and agreement. Plaintiffs and members 

of the Damages Class have paid more for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

than they otherwise would have paid in the absence of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct. This 

injury is of the type the antitrust laws of the above states were designed to prevent and flows 

from that which makes the Defendants’ conduct unlawful. 

252. In addition, the Defendants have profited significantly from the aforesaid 

conspiracy. The Defendants’ profits derived from their anticompetitive conduct come at the 

expense and detriment of the Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class. 

253. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class in each of the 

above jurisdictions seek damages (including statutory damages where applicable), to be trebled 

or otherwise increased as permitted by a particular jurisdiction’s antitrust law, and costs of suit, 

including reasonable attorneys’ fees, to the extent permitted by the above state laws. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 87 of 103 Pg ID 87
88 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of State Consumer Protection Statutes 

(on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Damages Class) 

254. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs. 

255. The Defendants knowingly engaged in unfair competition or unfair, 

unconscionable, deceptive or fraudulent acts or practices in violation of the state consumer 

protection and unfair competition statutes listed below. 

256. The Defendants have knowingly entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint 

of trade in violation of the Arkansas Code Annotated, § 4-88-101. 

(a) The Defendants knowingly agreed to, and did in fact, act in restraint of 

trade or commerce by affecting, fixing, controlling, and/or maintaining at non-competitive and 

artificially inflated levels, the prices at which Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

were sold, distributed, or obtained in Arkansas and took efforts to conceal their agreements from 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class. 

(b) The aforementioned conduct on the part of the Defendants constituted 

“unconscionable” and “deceptive” acts or practices in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated, § 

4-88-107(a)(10). 

(c) The Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price competition was restrained, suppressed, 

and eliminated throughout Arkansas; (2) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product 

prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout 

Arkansas; (3) Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open 

competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 88 of 103 Pg ID 88
89 

artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products and vehicles 

containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(d) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected Arkansas commerce and consumers. 

(e) As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of the 

Defendants, Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business 

and property and are threatened with further injury. 

257. The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated, § 4-88-107(a)(10) and, accordingly, Plaintiffs 

and the members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

258. The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, 

deceptive or fraudulent acts or practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code 

§ 17200, et seq. 

(a) During the Class Period, the Defendants committed and continue to 

commit acts of unfair competition, as defined by Sections 17200, et seq. of the California 

Business and Professions Code, by engaging in the acts and practices specified above. 

(b) This claim is instituted pursuant to Sections 17203 and 17204 of the 

California Business and Professions Code, to obtain restitution from the Defendants for acts, as 

alleged herein, that violated Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, 

commonly known as the Unfair Competition Law. 

(c) The Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein violated Section 17200. The 

acts, omissions, misrepresentations, practices and non-disclosures of the Defendants, as alleged 

herein, constituted a common, continuous, and continuing course of conduct of unfair 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 89 of 103 Pg ID 89
90 

competition by means of unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent business acts or practices within the 

meaning of California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200, et seq., including, but not 

limited to, the following: (1) the violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as set forth above; 

(2) the violations of Section 16720, et seq., of the California Business and Professions Code, set 

forth above; 

(d) The Defendants’ acts, omissions, misrepresentations, practices, and nondisclosures, as described above, whether or not in violation of Section 16720, et seq., of the 

California Business and Professions Code, and whether or not concerted or independent acts, are 

otherwise unfair, unconscionable, unlawful or fraudulent; 

(e) The Defendants’ acts or practices are unfair to purchasers of Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products (or vehicles containing them) in the State of California 

within the meaning of Section 17200, California Business and Professions Code; and 

(f) The Defendants’ acts and practices are fraudulent or deceptive within the 

meaning of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. 

(g) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class are entitled to full restitution 

and/or disgorgement of all revenues, earnings, profits, compensation, and benefits that may have 

been obtained by the Defendants as a result of such business acts or practices. 

(h) The illegal conduct alleged herein is continuing and there is no indication 

that the Defendants will not continue such activity into the future. 

(i) The unlawful and unfair business practices of the Defendants have caused 

and continue to cause Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class to pay supracompetitive 

and artificially-inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products (or 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 90 of 103 Pg ID 90
91 

vehicles containing them). Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class suffered injury in 

fact and lost money or property as a result of such unfair competition. 

(j) The conduct of the Defendants as alleged in this Complaint violates 

Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. 

(k) As alleged in this Complaint, the Defendants and their co-conspirators 

have been unjustly enriched as a result of their wrongful conduct and by the Defendants’ unfair 

competition. Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class are accordingly entitled to 

equitable relief including restitution and/or disgorgement of all revenues, earnings, profits, 

compensation, and benefits that may have been obtained by the Defendants as a result of such 

business practices, pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code, Sections 17203 and 

17204. 

259. The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, 

Fla. Stat. §§ 501.201, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price competition was restrained, suppressed, 

and eliminated throughout Florida; (2) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices 

were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Florida; (3) 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and 

(4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated 

prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected Florida commerce and consumers. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 91 of 103 Pg ID 91
92 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured and are threatened with further 

injury. 

(d) The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive 

acts or practices in violation of Florida Stat. § 501.201, et seq., and, accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

260. The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of the New Mexico Stat. § 57-12-1, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants and their co-conspirators agreed to, and did in fact, act in 

restraint of trade or commerce by affecting, fixing, controlling and/or maintaining at noncompetitive and artificially inflated levels, the prices at which Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products were sold, distributed or obtained in New Mexico and took efforts to conceal 

their agreements from Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class. 

261. Plaintiffs were not aware of Defendants’ price-fixing conspiracy and were 

therefore unaware that they were being unfairly and illegally overcharged. There was a gross 

disparity of bargaining power between the parties with respect to the price charged by 

Defendants for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. Defendants had the sole 

power to set that price and Plaintiffs had no power to negotiate a lower price. Moreover, 

Plaintiffs lacked any meaningful choice in purchasing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products because they were unaware of the unlawful overcharge and because they had to 

purchase Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in order to be able to operate their 

vehicles. Defendants’ conduct with regard to sales of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products, including their illegal conspiracy to secretly fix the price of Automotive Constant2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 92 of 103 Pg ID 92
93 

Velocity-Joint Boot Products at supracompetitive levels and overcharge consumers, was 

substantively unconscionable because it was one-sided and unfairly benefited Defendants at the 

expense of Plaintiffs and the public. Defendants took grossly unfair advantage of Plaintiffs. 

(a) The aforementioned conduct on the part of the Defendants constituted 

“unconscionable trade practices,” in violation of N.M.S.A. Stat. § 57-12-3, in that such conduct, 

inter alia, resulted in a gross disparity between the value received by Plaintiffs and the members 

of the Damages Class and the prices paid by them for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products as set forth in N.M.S.A., § 57-12-2E due to the inflated prices paid by Plaintiffs and 

Class members for vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(b) The Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price competition was restrained, suppressed, 

and eliminated throughout New Mexico; (2) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product 

prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout New 

Mexico; (3) Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open 

competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(c) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected New Mexico commerce and consumers. 

(d) As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of the 

Defendants, Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class have been injured and are 

threatened with further injury. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 93 of 103 Pg ID 93
94 

(e) The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive 

acts or practices in violation of New Mexico Stat. § 57-12-1, et seq., and, accordingly, Plaintiffs 

and the members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

262. The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, et seq.

(a) The Defendants and their co-conspirators agree to, and did in fact, act in 

restraint of trade or commerce by affecting, fixing, controlling and/or maintaining, at artificial 

and non-competitive levels, the prices at which Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products were sold, distributed or obtained in New York and took efforts to conceal their 

agreements from Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class. 

(b) Defendants deceptively led purchasers, such as Plaintiffs and Class 

members, to believe that the Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products they had 

purchased as replacements and inside vehicles had been sold at legal competitive prices, when 

they had in fact been sold at collusively obtained inflated prices, that were passed on to them. 

(c) The conduct of the Defendants described herein constitutes consumeroriented deceptive acts or practices within the meaning of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, which 

resulted in injuries to purchasers and broad adverse impact on the public at large, and harmed the 

public interest of New York State in an honest marketplace in which economic activity is 

conducted in a competitive manner. 

(d) The Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price competition was restrained, suppressed, 

and eliminated throughout New York; (2) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product 

prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout New 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 94 of 103 Pg ID 94
95 

York; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open 

competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(e) Because of Defendants' unlawful trade practices in the State of New York, 

New York purchasers who indirectly purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products were misled to believe that they were paying a fair price for Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products or the price increases for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products were for valid business reasons; and similarly situated purchasers were affected by 

Defendants' conspiracy. 

(f) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected New York commerce and New York purchasers.

(g) During the Class Period, the Defendants directly, or indirectly and through 

affiliates they dominated and controlled, manufactured, sold and/or distributed Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in New York. 

(h) Defendants knew that their unlawful trade practices with respect to pricing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Productswould have a broad impact, causing class 

members who indirectly purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products to be 

injured by paying more for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products than they would 

have paid in the absence of Defendants' unlawful trade acts and practices. 

(i) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available 

pursuant to N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 (h). 

263. The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of North Carolina Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, et seq. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 95 of 103 Pg ID 95
96 

(a) The Defendants and their co-conspirators agreed to, and did in fact, act in 

restraint of trade or commerce by affecting, fixing, controlling and/or maintaining, at artificial 

and non-competitive levels, the prices at which Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products were sold, distributed or obtained in North Carolina and took efforts to conceal their 

agreements from Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class. 

(b) The conduct of the Defendants described herein constitutes consumeroriented deceptive acts or practices within the meaning of North Carolina law, which resulted in 

injury to purchasers and broad adverse impact on the public at large, and harmed the public 

interest of North Carolina purchasers in an honest marketplace in which economic activity is 

conducted in a competitive manner. 

(c) The Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price competition was restrained, suppressed, 

and eliminated throughout North Carolina; (2) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product 

prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout North 

Carolina; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open 

competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(d) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected North Carolina commerce and purchasers in North Carolina. 

(e) Defendants deceptively concealed their unlawful activities by conducting 

meetings and conversations in secret. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 96 of 103 Pg ID 96
97 

(f) During the Class Period, the Defendants directly, or indirectly and through 

affiliates they dominated and controlled, manufactured, sold and/or distributed Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in North Carolina. 

(g) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek actual damages for 

their injuries caused by these violations in an amount to be determined at trial and are threatened 

with further injury. The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive 

acts or practices in violation of North Carolina Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, et seq., and, accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

264. The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, S.C. Code 

Ann. §§ 39-5-10, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: 

(1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price competition was restrained, 

suppressed, and eliminated throughout South Carolina; (2) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels 

throughout South Carolina; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of 

free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid 

supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products and vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on South Carolina commerce. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 97 of 103 Pg ID 97
98 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

265. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in violation of S.C. Code Ann. §§ 39-5-10, et seq., and, accordingly, Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

266. The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of 9 Vermont § 2451, et seq.

(a) The Defendants and their co-conspirators agreed to, and did in fact, act in 

restraint of trade or commerce in a market that includes Vermont by affecting, fixing, 

controlling, and/or maintaining, at artificial and non-competitive levels, the prices at which 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products were sold, distributed, or obtained in 

Vermont. 

(b) The Defendants deliberately failed to disclose material facts to Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class concerning their unlawful activities and artificially inflated 

prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. The Defendants owed a duty to 

disclose such facts the Defendants breached that duty by their silence. The Defendants 

misrepresented to all purchasers during the Class Period that their Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Product prices were competitive and fair. 

(c) The Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price competition was restrained, suppressed, 

and eliminated throughout Vermont; (2) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product 

prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 98 of 103 Pg ID 98
99 

Vermont; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open 

competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(d) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ violations of law, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property 

as a result of the Defendants’ use or employment of unconscionable and deceptive commercial 

practices as set forth above. That loss was caused by the Defendants’ willful and deceptive 

conduct, as described herein. 

(e) The Defendants’ deception, including their omissions concerning the price 

of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, likely misled all purchasers acting 

reasonably under the circumstances to believe that they were purchasing Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products at prices born by a free and fair market. The Defendants’ 

misleading conduct and unconscionable activities constitutes unfair competition or unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in violation of 9 Vermont § 2451, et seq., and, accordingly, Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Unjust Enrichment 

on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Damages Class 

267. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs. 

268. Plaintiffs bring this claim under the laws of all states listed in the Second and 

Third Claims, supra. Plaintiffs also bring this claim under the laws of Missouri, Massachusetts 

and Illinois on behalf of the Plaintiffs who have their primary places of business in those three 

states and the class members in those three states. 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 99 of 103 Pg ID 99
100 

269. As a result of their unlawful conduct described above, the Defendants have and 

will continue to be unjustly enriched. The Defendants have been unjustly enriched by the receipt 

of, at a minimum, unlawfully inflated prices and unlawful profits on sales of Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

270. The Defendants have benefited from their unlawful acts and it would be 

inequitable for the Defendants to be permitted to retain any of the ill-gotten gains resulting from 

the overpayments made by Plaintiffs or the members of the Damages Class for Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

271. Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class are entitled to the amount of the 

Defendants’ ill-gotten gains resulting from their unlawful, unjust, and inequitable conduct. 

Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class are entitled to the establishment of a 

constructive trust consisting of all ill-gotten gains from which Plaintiffs and the members of the 

Damages Class may make claims on a pro rata basis. 

272. Pursuit of any remedies against the firms from whom Plaintiffs and the Class 

members purchased vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products and 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products subject to the Defendants’ conspiracy would 

have been futile, given that those firms did not take part in the Defendants’ conspiracy. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that: 

A. The Court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action under 

Rule 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and direct that reasonable 

notice of this action, as provided by Rule 23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, be 

given to each and every member of the Classes; 

B. That the unlawful conduct, contract, conspiracy, or combination alleged herein be 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 100 of 103 Pg ID 100
101 

adjudged and decreed: 

(a) An unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 

of the Sherman Act; 

(b) A per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; and 

(c) Acts of unjust enrichment by Defendants as set forth herein. 

(d) An unlawful combination, trust, agreement, understanding and/or concert 

of action in violation of the state antitrust and unfair competition and consumer protection laws 

as set forth herein. 

C. Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class recover damages, to the 

maximum extent allowed under such laws, and that a joint and several judgment in favor of 

Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class be entered against the Defendants in an amount 

to be trebled to the extent such laws permit; 

D. Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class recover damages, to the 

maximum extent allowed by such laws, in the form of restitution and/or disgorgement of profits 

unlawfully gained from them; 

E. The Defendants, their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees and other 

officers, directors, partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or 

claiming to act on their behalf or in concert with them, be permanently enjoined and restrained 

from in any manner continuing, maintaining or renewing the conduct, contract, conspiracy, or 

combination alleged herein, or from entering into any other contract, conspiracy, or combination 

having a similar purpose or effect, and from adopting or following any practice, plan, program, 

or device having a similar purpose or effect; 

F. Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class be awarded restitution, 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 101 of 103 Pg ID 101
102 

including disgorgement of profits the Defendants obtained as a result of their acts of unfair 

competition and unjust enrichment; 

G. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes be awarded pre- and post- judgment 

interest as provided by law, and that such interest be awarded at the highest legal rate from and 

after the date of service of this Complaint; 

H. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes recover their costs of suit, including 

reasonable attorneys’ fees, as provided by law; and

I. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have such other and further relief as the 

case may require and the Court may deem just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury, pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, of all issues so triable. 

Dated: December 12, 2014. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 s/Gerard V. Mantese

Gerard V. Mantese 

(Michigan Bar No. P34424) 

David Hansma 

(Michigan Bar No. P71056) 

Brendan Frey 

(Michigan Bar No. P70893) 

Mantese Honigman Rossman and 

Williamson, P.C. 

1361 E. Big Beaver Road 

Troy, Michigan 48083 

Telephone: (248) 457-9200 

gmantese@manteselaw.com 

dhansma@manteselaw.com 

bfrey@manteselaw.com 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 102 of 103 Pg ID 102
103 

Don Barrett 

Brian Herrington 

David McMullan 

Barrett Law Group, P.A. 

P.O. Box 927 

404 Court Square 

Lexington, MS 39095 

Telephone: (662) 834-2488 

dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com 

bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com 

dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com 

Jonathan W. Cuneo 

Joel Davidow 

Daniel Cohen 

Victoria Romanenko 

Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP 

507 C Street, N.E. 

Washington, DC 20002 

Telephone: (202) 789-3960 

jonc@cuneolaw.com 

joel@cuneolaw.com 

danielc@cuneolaw.com 

vicky@cuneolaw.com 

Shawn M. Raiter 

Larson • King, LLP 

2800 Wells Fargo Place 

30 East Seventh Street 

St. Paul, MN 55101 

Telephone: (651) 312-6500 

sraiter@larsonking.com 

psand@larsonking.com 

Michael J. Flannery 

Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP 

300 North Tucker 

Suite 801 

St. Louis, MO 63101 

Telephone: (314) 226-1015 

mflannery@cuneolaw.com 

Phillip Duncan 

Richard Quintus 

Duncan Firm, P.A. 

900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725 

Little Rock, AR 72211 

Telephone: (501) 228-7600 

phillip@duncanfirm.com 

richard@duncanfirm.com 

Thomas P. Thrash 

Thrash Law Firm, P.A. 

1101 Garland Street 

Little Rock, AR 72201 

Telephone: (501) 374-1058 

tomthrash@sbcglobal.net 

Dewitt Lovelace 

Valerie Nettles 

Lovelace & Associates, P.A. 

Suite 200 

12870 US Hwy 98 West 

Miramar Beach, FL 32550 

Telephone: (850) 837-6020 

dml@lovelacelaw.com 

alex@lovelacelaw.com 

Attorneys for Dealership Plaintiffs

Charles Barrett 

Charles Barrett, P.C. 

6518 Highway 100 

Suite 210 

Nashville, Tennessee 37205 

Telephone: (615) 515-3393 

charles@cfbfirm.com 

Gregory Johnson 

G. Johnson Law, PLLC 

6688 145th Street West, 

Apple Valley, MN 55124 

Telephone: (952) 930-2485 

greg@gjohnsonlegal.com 

2:14-cv-14719-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 12/12/14 Pg 103 of 103 Pg ID 103