UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

IN RE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

12-md-02311 

Honorable Marianne O. Battani 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM 

CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS 

ACTION COMPLAINT 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

PRODUCT(S): 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products 

This Document Relates to: 

ALL DEALERSHIP ACTIONS 

DEALERSHIP CONSOLIDATED CLASS COMPLAINT

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 

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/ 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 1 of 111 Pg ID 112
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”), Cannon Chevrolet – Oldsmobile – Cadillac – Nissan, Inc. 

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

Charleston 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”), 

Empire Nissan of Santa Rosa, LLC (“Plaintiff Empire Nissan”), Scotland Car Yard Enterprises 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 2 of 111 Pg ID 113
d/b/a San Rafael Mitsubishi (“Plaintiff San Rafael”), and Westfield Dodge City, Inc. (“Plaintiff 

Westfield”) (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 vehicles1

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 

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. 

 1

 “Vehicles” as used here, means any new vehicles purchased by automobile dealers throughout the United 

States, including but not limited to sedans, trucks and sport utility vehicles. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 3 of 111 Pg ID 114
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 $2.4 billion 

in criminal fines. The European Commission Competition Authority (“EC”) has also conducted 

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

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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 4 of 111 Pg ID 115
7. In addition to the fact that Defendant Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. agreed to 

plead guilty and agreed on its own behalf and on behalf of its subsidiaries to cooperate in the 

DOJ’s investigation, one of its high-ranking executives has pleaded guilty to criminal pricefixing in the automotive parts industry and several others have been criminally indicted. On 

November 21, 2003, the DOJ announced that Tetsuya Kunida, a former executive of 

Defendant Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd., agreed to serve 12 months and one day in a U.S. 

prison, and to pay a $20,000 criminal fine, and plead guilty to a one-count criminal 

Information for his role in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, raise, and maintain the 

prices of anti-vibration rubber products sold to automobile and component manufacturers in 

the United States and elsewhere. 

8. 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, consumer protection and 

unjust enrichment laws. 

9. 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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 5 of 111 Pg ID 116
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

10. 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. 

11. 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. 

12. 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. 

13. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 6 of 111 Pg ID 117
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, 

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. 

14. 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. 

15. 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. 

16. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 7 of 111 Pg ID 118
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. 

17. 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 

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. 

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

automobile dealers in the United States. 

PARTIES 

Plaintiffs 

19. 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. 

20. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 8 of 111 Pg ID 119
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. 

21. 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 

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. 

22. 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. 

23. 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 Constant2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 9 of 111 Pg ID 120
Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators during the 

Class Period. 

24. 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 

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

Minnesota during the Class Period. 

25. 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 Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by one or 

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

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

26. During the Class Period Plaintiff Martens purchased vehicles containing 

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

Defendants or their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Martens also purchased Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products, manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their coconspirators, for its repair and service business, during the Class Period. Plaintiff Martens 

purchased and received both the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 10 of 111 Pg ID 121
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. 

27. 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 GMC-, Pontiac-, Oldsmobile-, and Jeep-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. 

28. 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. 

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

Palm Springs, California. Plaintiff V.I.P. is an authorized Mercedes, BMW, Infiniti, and 

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

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 11 of 111 Pg ID 122
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. 

30. 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 

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

vehicles in California during the Class Period. 

31. 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. 

32. 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 afore2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 12 of 111 Pg ID 123
mentioned 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. 

33. 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 

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

34. 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. 

35. 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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 13 of 111 Pg ID 124
36. 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. 

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

during the Class Period. 

37. 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. 

38. 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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 14 of 111 Pg ID 125
39. 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. 

40. 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. 

41. 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. 

42. 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-Velocity2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 15 of 111 Pg ID 126
Joint 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. 

43. 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. 

44. 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. 

45. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 16 of 111 Pg ID 127
Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their coconspirators during the Class Period. 

46. 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 

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. 

47. 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. 

48. 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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 17 of 111 Pg ID 128
Plaintiff Pitre has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in New Mexico 

during the Class Period. 

49. 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 

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. 

50. 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. 

51. 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. 

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

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

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 18 of 111 Pg ID 129
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 

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

North Carolina during the Class Period. 

53. 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. 

54. 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. 

55. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 19 of 111 Pg ID 130
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. 

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

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

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. 

57. 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. 

58. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 20 of 111 Pg ID 131
Motors has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in Massachusetts during the 

Class Period. 

59. Plaintiff Commonwealth Volkswagen is a Massachusetts corporation with its 

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

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. 

60. 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. 

61. 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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 21 of 111 Pg ID 132
62. 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 coconspirators, 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. 

63. 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. 

64. 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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 22 of 111 Pg ID 133
65. 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 coconspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

66. 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. 

67. 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. 

68. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 23 of 111 Pg ID 134
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 

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

Wisconsin during the Class Period. 

69. 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. 

70. 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. 

71. 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 co2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 24 of 111 Pg ID 135
conspirators, as well as Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the 

Defendants or their co-conspirators during the Class Period. 

72. 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. 

73. 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. 

74. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 25 of 111 Pg ID 136
Products in Oregon. Plaintiff Capitol Toyota has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised 

its vehicles in Oregon during the Class Period. 

75. 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. 

76. 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. 

77. 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. 

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

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

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 26 of 111 Pg ID 137
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 

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. 

79. 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. 

80. 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. 

81. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 27 of 111 Pg ID 138
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. 

82. 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. 

83. 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. 

84. 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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 28 of 111 Pg ID 139
Plaintiff Lee Honda has also displayed, sold, serviced, and advertised its vehicles in Maine 

during the Class Period. 

85. 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. 

86. 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. 

87. 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. 

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

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

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 29 of 111 Pg ID 140
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 

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. 

89. 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 

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

during the Class Period. 

90. 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. 

91. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 30 of 111 Pg ID 141
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. 

92. 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 

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

Mississippi during the Class Period. 

93. 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. 

94. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 31 of 111 Pg ID 142
Products in South Carolina. Plaintiff Hudson Nissan has also displayed, sold, serviced, and 

advertised its vehicles in South Carolina during the Class Period. 

95. 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. 

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

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

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. 

97. 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. 

98. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 32 of 111 Pg ID 143
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. 

99. 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 

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

during the Class Period. 

100. 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. 

101. 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 Constant2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 33 of 111 Pg ID 144
Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators during the 

Class Period. 

102. 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 

its vehicles in Tennessee during the Class Period. 

103. 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. 

104. 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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 34 of 111 Pg ID 145
105. 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. 

106. 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, 

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. 

107. 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. 

108. 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 Constant2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 35 of 111 Pg ID 146
Velocity-Joint Boot Products in Florida. Plaintiff John Lee has also displayed, sold, serviced, 

and advertised its vehicles in Florida during the Class Period. 

109. 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. 

110. 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. 

111. Plaintiff San Rafael is a California corporation with its principal place of business 

in San Rafael, California. Plaintiff San Rafael is an authorized Mitsubishi dealer that purchased 

Mitsubishi-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. 

112. During the Class Period Plaintiff San Rafael purchased vehicles containing 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products manufactured by the Defendants or their co2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 36 of 111 Pg ID 147
conspirators. Plaintiff San Rafael also purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products, manufactured by the Defendants or their co-conspirators. Plaintiff San Rafael 

purchased and received both the afore-mentioned vehicles and Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products in California. Plaintiff San Rafael has also displayed, sold, serviced, and 

advertised its vehicles in California during the Class Period. 

113. Plaintiff Westfield is a New York company with its principal place of business in 

Westfield, New York. Plaintiff Westfield is an authorized Chrysler dealer, who sells Chrysler-, 

Dodge- and Jeep-brand vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

manufactured by one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators, as well as Automotive 

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

co-conspirators. 

114. During the Class Period Plaintiff Westfield purchased vehicles containing 

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

their co-conspirators. Plaintiff Westfield 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 Westfield purchased and received both 

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

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

York during the Class Period. 

Defendants 

115. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 37 of 111 Pg ID 148
and/or sold Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products that were purchased throughout 

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

116. 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 

117. 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. 

118. 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. 

119. 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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 38 of 111 Pg ID 149
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

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

120. “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. A constant velocity universal joint boot manufactured by Defendants is 

shown in Figure 1 below. 

 

121. 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. 

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

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

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

quotes, or bids, to the Tier 1 Manufacturers. 

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

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 39 of 111 Pg ID 150
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. 

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

during the Class Period, is GKN PLLC. 

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

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

126. 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 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. 

127. Replacement Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products sold to 

dealerships through OEMs are the same as the Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products installed in vehicles and are made by the same manufacturer who made the Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products originally installed—that is 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 40 of 111 Pg ID 151
of replacement Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products were inflated by Defendants’ 

collusion. 

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

128. 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 

129. 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. 

130. 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. 

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

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

132. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 41 of 111 Pg ID 152
potential new entrants, who must avoid infringing on the patents when entering the market with a 

new product. 

133. 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 

134. “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. 

135. 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. 

136. 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 

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

prices are kept at a supra-competitive level. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 42 of 111 Pg ID 153
G. Government Investigations 

137. 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.” 

138. The probe originated in Europe as the result of several European OEMs coming 

together to bring a complaint to the European Commission (“EC”). The EC and the FBI have 

executed surprise raids at the European and U.S. offices of several auto parts manufacturers as 

part of an investigation into anticompetitive conduct related to the manufacturing and sale of 

automotive parts. 

139. On February 8, 2010, the EC executed surprise raids at the European offices of 

certain automotive parts makers. 

140. 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 $2.4 billion in criminal fines. 

141. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 43 of 111 Pg ID 154
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 

early as January 2006 and continuing until as late as September 2010 in violation of the Sherman 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 

142. 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 Products2

 to GKN in the 

United States and elsewhere at collusive and noncompetitive prices; and 

(g) accepting payment for Automotive Constant-Velocity Joint Boot 

Products3

 sold to GKN in the United States and elsewhere at collusive and noncompetitive 

prices. 

 

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. 

3

 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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 44 of 111 Pg ID 155
D. Guilty Pleas and Other Criminal Pleadings Arising From the Automotive 

Parts Investigation 

143. On September 29, 2011, the DOJ announced that Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd. had 

agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $200 million criminal fine for its role in a criminal pricefixing and bid rigging conspiracy involving the sale of automotive wire harnesses and related 

products to automobile manufacturers. 

144. 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. 

145. In the press release announcing the fine against Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd., 

Sharis A Pozen, then the Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ’s Antitrust 

division, said that “[a]s a result of this international price-fixing and bid-rigging conspiracy, 

automobile manufacturers paid noncompetitive and higher prices for parts in cars sold to U.S. 

consumers.” Ms. Pozen also stated that “[t]his cartel harmed an important industry in our 

nation’s economy, and the Antitrust Division with the Federal Bureau of Investigation will 

continue to work together to ensure that these kinds of conspiracies are stopped.” The press 

release also quoted FBI’s Special Agent in Charge Andrew G. Arena, who said that “[w]hen 

companies partner to control and price fix bids or contracts, it undermines the foundation of the 

United States’ economic system,” and that “[t]he FBI is committed to aggressively pursuing any 

company involved in antitrust crimes.” 

146. On January 30, 2012, the DOJ announced that Yazaki Corporation (“Yazaki”) and 

DENSO Corporation (“DENSO”) had agreed to plead guilty and to pay a total of $548 million in 

criminal fines for their involvement in multiple price-fixing and bid-rigging conspiracies in the 

sale of automotive parts to automotive manufacturers in the United States. According to the 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 45 of 111 Pg ID 156
three-count felony charge against Yazaki, it engaged in the following three conspiracies: (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. 

147. According to the two-count felony charge against DENSO, it engaged in 

conspiracies to rig bids for and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of electric control units 

and heater control panels. 

148. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 46 of 111 Pg ID 157
elsewhere in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. These five Yazaki executives will 

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. 

149. On March 26, 2012, the DOJ announced that Norihiro Imai, and executive of 

Defendant DENSO Corporation, agreed to serve one year and one day in a U.S. prison, pay a 

$20,000 criminal fine, and plead guilty to a one-count criminal Information charging him with 

engaging in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of heater 

control panels sold to customers in the United States. 

150. On April 26, 2012, the DOJ announced that Makoto Hattori, another executive of 

Defendant DENSO Corporation, agreed to serve fourteen months in a U.S. prison, pay a $20,000 

criminal fine, and plead guilty to a one-count criminal Information charging him with engaging 

in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of heater control 

panels sold to a customer in the United States and elsewhere. 

151. On May 21, 2013, the DOJ announced that Yuji Suzuki, yet another executive of 

Defendant DENSO Corporation, agreed to serve sixteen months in a U.S. prison, pay a $20,000 

criminal fine, and plead guilty to a two-count criminal Information for his role in a conspiracy to 

rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of electronic control units and heater 

control panels sold in the United States and elsewhere. 

152. In the press release announcing the fines against Yazaki and DENSO, FBI Special 

Agent in Charge Andrew G. Arena said that “[t]his criminal activity has a significant impact on 

the automotive manufacturers in the United States, Canada, Japan and Europe and has been 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 47 of 111 Pg ID 158
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[.]” 

153. “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.” 

154. A number of additional companies have pleaded guilty to fixing the prices of 

automotive parts, including, among others: 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, among others: 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 bid-rigging, price-fixing, and market allocation during the same 

time period as the Defendants with multiple OEMs as their targets, including, among others, 

Suzuki, Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Subaru, Chrysler, German manufacturers and unnamed 

automobile manufacturers. 

155. On April 3, 2012, the DOJ announced that G.S. Electech, Inc. had agreed to plead 

guilty and to pay a $2.75 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to 

fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of, speed sensor wire assemblies used on antilock brake 

systems sold to an automobile manufacturer in the United States and elsewhere. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 48 of 111 Pg ID 159
156. On April 23, 2012, the DOJ announced that Fujikura Ltd. had agreed to plead 

guilty and to pay a $20 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, 

stabilize, and maintain the prices of, automotive wire harnesses and related products sold to an 

automobile manufacturer in the United States and elsewhere. 

157. On June 6, 2012 , the DOJ announced that Autoliv Inc. had agreed to plead guilty 

to a two-count criminal Information and to pay a $14.5 criminal fine for its involvement in a 

combination and conspiracy to suppress competition in the automotive parts industry by (i) 

agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of, certain seatbelts sold to a 

Japanese automobile manufacturer; and (ii) agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and 

maintain the prices of, certain seatbelts, airbags, and/or steering wheels sold to a Japanese 

automobile manufacturer. 

158. On July 30, 2012, the DOJ announced that TRW Deutschland Holding GmbH had 

agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $5.1 million criminal fine for its involvement in a 

combination and conspiracy, through its employees, including high level employees of its 

wholly-owned subsidiaries, 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 seatbelts, 

airbags and steering wheels sold to two German automobile manufacturers in the United States 

and elsewhere. 

159. On August 28, 2012, the DOJ announced that Nippon Seiki Co. Ltd. had agreed to 

plead guilty and to pay a $1 million criminal fine for its involvement in a combination and 

conspiracy to suppress 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 an automobile 

manufacturer in the United States and elsewhere. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 49 of 111 Pg ID 160
160. On October 30, 2012, the DOJ announced that Tokai Rika Co. Ltd. agreed to 

plead guilty and to pay a $17.7 million criminal fine for its involvement in a conspiracy to rig 

bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of, HCPs sold to Toyota Motor Corporation 

and Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. in the United States and 

elsewhere. Tokai Rika also agreed to plead guilty to a charge of obstruction of justice related to 

the investigation of the antitrust violation. 

161. 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). 

162. 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. 

163. On July 16, 2013, the DOJ announced that Diamond Electric Mfg. Co. Ltd. had 

agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $19 million criminal fine for its involvement in a combination 

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

for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of, ignition coils sold to automobile 

manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere. 

164. On July 18, 2013, Panasonic Corporation agreed to plead guilty and to pay a 

$45.8 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices of various automotive parts 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 50 of 111 Pg ID 161
including high intensity discharge (HID) ballasts, switches and steering angle sensors installed in 

automobiles sold in the United States and elsewhere. 

165. 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. 

166. On September 26, 2013, nine additional Japanese automotive suppliers 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. 

167. The diagram below, which was prepared by the DOJ, illustrates the guilty pleas 

announced September 26, 2013, and the corresponding automotive parts to which the various 

manufacturers admitted to price-fixing. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 51 of 111 Pg ID 162
168. 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. 

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

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

separate conspiracies to fix the prices of automotive components involving anti-vibration rubber 

and Constant-Velocity-Joint Boots installed in automobiles sold in the United States and 

elsewhere. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 52 of 111 Pg ID 163
170. 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. 

171. 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. 

172. 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. 

173. 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. 

174. On February 20, 2014, the DOJ announced that Kazuaki Fujutani, a former 

executive of Defendant DENSO Corporation, agreed to serve one year and one day in a U.S. 

prison and plead guilty to a one-count criminal Information charging him with obstruction of 

justice for deleting numerous e-mails and electronic documents upon learning the FBI was 

executing a search warrant on Defendant DENSO International America, Inc., in connection with 

the DOJ’s investigation into a conspiracy to fix the prices of heater control panels installed in 

automobiles sold in the United States and elsewhere. 

175. 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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 53 of 111 Pg ID 164
176. On August 19, 2014, the DOJ announced that NGK Sparkplug Co. Ltd. agreed to 

plead guilty and to pay a $52.1 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices and 

rig bids for spark plugs, standard oxygen sensors, and air fuel ratio sensors installed in cars sold 

to automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere. 

177. On September 29, 2014, the DOJ announced that Toyoda Gosei Co. Ltd. agreed 

to plead guilty and to pay a $26 million criminal fine for its involvement in a combination and 

conspiracy to suppress competition in the automotive parts industry by agreeing to allocate sales 

of, to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of certain automotive hoses sold to 

Toyota in the United States and by agreeing to allocate sales of, to rig bids for, and to fix, 

stabilize, and maintain the prices of, automotive airbags and steering wheels sold to Subaru and 

Toyota in the United States and elsewhere. 

178. On October 31, 2014, the DOJ announced that Hitachi Metals Ltd. agreed to plead 

guilty and to pay a $1.25 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to allocate the sales of, 

to rig bids for, and to fix, raise, and maintain the prices of automotive brake hose sold to Toyota 

in the United States and elsewhere. 

179. On November 13, 2014, the DOJ announced that Aisin Seiki Co. Ltd. agreed to 

plead guilty and to pay a $35.8 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to allocate 

customers of variable valve timing devices installed in cars sold to automobile manufacturers in 

the United States and elsewhere. 

180.On November 24, 2014, the DOJ announced that Continental Automotive 

Electronics LLC and Continental Automotive Korea Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and to pay a 

criminal fine of $4 million for their roles in a conspiracy to rig bids of instrument panel 

clusters installed in vehicles manufactured and sold in the United States. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 54 of 111 Pg ID 165
181. To date, thirty-two companies and forty-eight 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 thirty-two companies have either pleaded guilty or have agreed to plead 

guilty and have agreed to pay approximately $2.4 billion in criminal fines. 

182. The U.S. government has said its automotive parts cartel criminal investigation 

will continue and other suppliers could be charged. 

E. Likely Existence of an “Amnesty Applicant.” 

183. 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. 

184. 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 

185. 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. 

186. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 55 of 111 Pg ID 166
the Classes, firms who sold such Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products and 

vehicles passed Defendants’ overcharges on to Plaintiffs and the Classes. 

187. Plaintiffs and the Classes are entitled to the overcharges they paid for Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

188. 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 

189. 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) indirectly 

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. 

190. 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”): 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 56 of 111 Pg ID 167
All automobile dealers, in the Indirect Purchaser States, that, during the 

Class Period (a) indirectly 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. 

191. 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. 

192. 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. 

193. 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; 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 57 of 111 Pg ID 168
(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; 

(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. 

194. 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. 

195. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 58 of 111 Pg ID 169
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. 

196. 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. 

197. 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. 

198. 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 

199. 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; 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 59 of 111 Pg ID 170
(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 

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. 

200. 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. 

201. An increase in the prices of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

caused an increase in the price of vehicles during the class period. 

202. Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products comprise a significant portion 

of the price of a vehicle. 

203. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 60 of 111 Pg ID 171
manufacturers, which is ultimately dependent on consumer fleet demand for automotive 

vehicles.” 

204. 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. 

205. 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. 

206. Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products have their own part numbers, 

which permit them to be tracked. 

207. Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products can be removed from a 

finished vehicle and replaced. 

208. 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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 61 of 111 Pg ID 172
209. 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. 

210. 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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 62 of 111 Pg ID 173
the amount of the supracompetitive charge passed through the chain of distribution. Thus, the 

economic harm to Plaintiffs and class members can be quantified. 

211. 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 

212. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations set forth above. 

213. 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. 

214. 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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 63 of 111 Pg ID 174
215. 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. 

216. 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 

217. 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. 

218. 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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 64 of 111 Pg ID 175
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. 

219. 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. 

220. Defendants had secret communications to collusively fix prices, rig bids, and 

allocate markets for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

221. 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. 

222. 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. 

223. 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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 65 of 111 Pg ID 176
224. 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. 

225. 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) 

226. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs. 

227. 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). 

228. 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. 

229. 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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 66 of 111 Pg ID 177
230. 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. 

231. The conspiratorial acts and combinations have caused unreasonable restraints in 

the market for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

232. 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. 

233. 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. 

234. 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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 67 of 111 Pg ID 178
(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. 

235. 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. 

236. 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. 

237. 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. 

238. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class continue to purchase vehicles and 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, on a regular basis. 

239. Vehicles and Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products continue to be 

sold at inflated and supracompetitive prices. 

240. 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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 68 of 111 Pg ID 179
241. The alleged contract, combination, or conspiracy is a per se violation of the 

federal antitrust laws. 

242. 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) 

243. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs. 

244. 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. 

245. 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. 

246. 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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 69 of 111 Pg ID 180
(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. 

247. 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. 

248. The Defendants’ anticompetitive acts described above were knowing and willful 

and constitute violations or flagrant violations of the following state antitrust statutes. 

249. 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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 70 of 111 Pg ID 181
(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.

250. 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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 71 of 111 Pg ID 182
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. 

251. 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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 72 of 111 Pg ID 183
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, including those who resided in the District of Columbia and/or 

purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products or vehicles in the District of 

Columbia were deprived of free and open competition, including in the District of Columbia; and 

(4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, including those who resided in the District of 

Columbia and/or purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products or vehicles in the 

District of Columbia paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products, including in the District of Columbia. 

(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.

252. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 73 of 111 Pg ID 184
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 

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. 

253. 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. 

254. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 74 of 111 Pg ID 185
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. 

(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.

4

255. 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. 

 4

 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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 75 of 111 Pg ID 186
(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected Iowa 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 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.

256. 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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 76 of 111 Pg ID 187
(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 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.

257. 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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 77 of 111 Pg ID 188
(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.

258. 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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 78 of 111 Pg ID 189
259. 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 

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. 

260. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 79 of 111 Pg ID 190
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, 

including those who resided in Mississippi and/or purchased Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products or vehicles in Mississippi were deprived of free and open competition, 

including in Mississippi; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, including those 

who resided in Mississippi and/or purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

or vehicles in Mississippi paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, including in Mississippi. 

(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.

261. 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 80 of 111 Pg ID 191
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. 

(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.

262. 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, 

including those who resided in Nevada and/or purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products or vehicles in Nevada, were deprived of free and open competition, including in 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 81 of 111 Pg ID 192
Nevada; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, including those who resided in 

Nevada and/or purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products or vehicles in 

Nevada paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products, including in Nevada. 

(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. 

(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.

263. 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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 82 of 111 Pg ID 193
(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. 

264. 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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 83 of 111 Pg ID 194
(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. 

265. 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 

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, 

including those who resided in New York and/or purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products or vehicles in New York, were deprived of free and open competition, including 

in New York; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, including those who resided 

in New York and/or purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products or vehicles in 

New York, paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products when they purchased, including in New York, 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’ 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 84 of 111 Pg ID 195
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. 

266. 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) 

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, including those who resided in North Carolina and/or purchased Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products or vehicles in North Carolina, were deprived of free and 

open competition, including in North Carolina; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class, including those who resided in North Carolina and/or purchased Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products or vehicles in North Carolina, paid supracompetitive, artificially 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 85 of 111 Pg ID 196
inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, including in North 

Carolina. 

(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. 

267. 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 

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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 86 of 111 Pg ID 197
(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. 

268. 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. 

(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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 87 of 111 Pg ID 198
(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. 

269. 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, including those who resided in South Dakota and/or purchased Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products or vehicles in South Dakota, were deprived of free and 

open competition, including in South Dakota; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class, including those who resided in South Dakota and/or purchased Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products or vehicles in South Dakota paid supracompetitive, artificially 

inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, including in South 

Dakota. 

(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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 88 of 111 Pg ID 199
(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. 

270. 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, 

including those who resided in Tennessee and/or purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products or vehicles in Tennessee, were deprived of free and open competition, including 

in Tennessee; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, including those who resided 

in Tennessee and/or purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products or vehicles in 

Tennessee paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products, including in Tennessee. 

(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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 89 of 111 Pg ID 200
(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. 

271. 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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 90 of 111 Pg ID 201
272. 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 

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. 

273. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the West Virginia Code §§ 47-18-1, et seq. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 91 of 111 Pg ID 202
(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 

Damages Class, including those who resided in West Virginia and/or purchased Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products or vehicles in West Virginia, were deprived of free and 

open competition, including in West Virginia; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class, including those who resided in West Virginia and/or purchased Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products or vehicles in West Virginia paid supracompetitive, artificially 

inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, including in West 

Virginia. 

(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. 

274. The Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in 

violation of the Wisconsin Statutes §§ 133.01, et seq. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 92 of 111 Pg ID 203
(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. 

(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. 

275. 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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 93 of 111 Pg ID 204
276. 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. 

277. 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. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Violation of State Consumer Protection Statutes 

(on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Damages Class) 

278. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs. 

279. 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. 

280. 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). 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 94 of 111 Pg ID 205
(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, 

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. 

281. 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. 

282. 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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 95 of 111 Pg ID 206
(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 

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) Defendants unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products price competition was restrained, suppressed, and 

eliminated throughout California; (2) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products prices 

were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout California; (3) 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 96 of 111 Pg ID 207
Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, including those who resided in California and/or 

purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products or vehicles in California, were 

deprived of free and open competition, including in California; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of 

the Damages Class, including those who resided in California and/or purchased Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products or vehicles in California, paid supracompetitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products and vehicles 

containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, including in California. 

(g) The Defendants’ acts and practices are fraudulent or deceptive within the 

meaning of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. 

(h) 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. 

(i) The illegal conduct alleged herein is continuing and there is no indication 

that the Defendants will not continue such activity into the future. 

(j) 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 

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. 

(k) The conduct of the Defendants as alleged in this Complaint violates 

Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. 

(l) 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 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 97 of 111 Pg ID 208
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. 

283. 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, including those who resided in Florida and/or 

purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product or vehicles in Florida were 

deprived of free and open competition, including in Florida; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of 

the Damages Class, including those who resided in Florida and/or purchased Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product or vehicles in Florida, paid supracompetitive, artificially 

inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, including in Florida. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected Florida commerce and consumers. 

(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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 98 of 111 Pg ID 209
(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. 

284. 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. 

285. 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 ConstantVelocity-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. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 99 of 111 Pg ID 210
(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. 

(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. 

286. 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.

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 100 of 111 Pg ID 211
(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 

York; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, including those who resided in New 

York and/or purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products or vehicles in New 

York, were deprived of free and open competition, including in New York; and (4) Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class, including those who resided in New York and/or purchased 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products or vehicles in New York paid 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 101 of 111 Pg ID 212
supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products, including in New York. 

(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 Products would 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). 

287. 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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 102 of 111 Pg ID 213
(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, including those who resided in North 

Carolina and/or purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products or vehicles in 

North Carolina, were deprived of free and open competition, including in North Carolina; and (4) 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class, including those who resided in North Carolina 

and/or purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products or vehicles in North 

Carolina paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint Boot Products, including in North Carolina. 

(d) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially 

affected North Carolina commerce and purchasers in North Carolina. 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 103 of 111 Pg ID 214
(e) Defendants deceptively concealed their unlawful activities by conducting 

meetings and conversations in secret. 

(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. 

288. 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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 104 of 111 Pg ID 215
(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. 

289. 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. 

290. 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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 105 of 111 Pg ID 216
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 

291. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs. 

292. Plaintiffs bring this claim under the laws of all states listed in the Second and 

Third Claims, supra., except California. 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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 106 of 111 Pg ID 217
293. 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. 

294. 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. 

295. 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. 

296. 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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 107 of 111 Pg ID 218
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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 108 of 111 Pg ID 219
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 22, 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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 109 of 111 Pg ID 220
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 

Yifei Li 

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 

evelyn@cuneolaw.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-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 110 of 111 Pg ID 221
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on December 22, 2014 I electronically filed the foregoing papers 

with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send electronic notices of same to 

all counsel of record. 

 __/s/ Brendan Frey __________ 

Brendan Frey (Michigan Bar No. P70893) 

Mantese Honigman Rossman 

 and Williamson, P.C. 

1361 E. Big Beaver Road 

Troy, Michigan 48083 

Phone: (248) 457-9200 ext. 203 

Fax: (248) 457-9201 

 Email: bfrey@manteselaw.com 

2:14-cv-02902-MOB-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 111 of 111 Pg ID 222