UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

GREGORY ASKEN, MELISSA BARRON, 

KIMBERLY BENNETT, DAVID BERNSTEIN, 

TENISHA BURGOS, KENT BUSEK, JENNIFER 

CHASE, RITA CORNISH, MELISSA CROOM, 

LORI CURTIS, JESSICA DECASTRO, ALENA 

FARRELL, JANE FITZGERALD, CARROLL 

GIBBS, DORI GILELS, JASON GRALA, PAUL 

GUSTAFSON, TOM HALVERSON, CURTIS 

HARR, ANDREW HEDLUND, GARY ARTHUR 

HERR, CAROL ANN KASHISHIAN, 

ELIZABETH KAUFMAN, ROBERT 

KLINGLER, LEONARD JULIAN, JAMES 

MAREAN, NILSA MERCADO, REBECCA 

LYNN MORROW, EDWARD MUSCARA, 

STACEY NICKELL, SOPHIE O’KEEFEZELMAN, ROGER OLSON, WILLIAM 

PICOTTE, WHITNEY PORTER, CINDY 

PRINCE, JANNE RICE, ROBERT RICE, JR., 

FRANCES GAMMELL-ROACH, DARREL 

SENIOR, MEETESH SHAH, DARCY 

SHERMAN, ERICA SHOAF, ARTHUR 

STUKEY, KATHLEEN TAWNEY, KEITH 

UEHARA, MICHAEL WICK, THOMAS 

WILSON, PHILLIP YOUNG, on Behalf of 

Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

TOYO TIRE & RUBBER CO., LTD., TOYO 

TIRE NORTH AMERICA MANUFACTURING 

INC., TOYO TIRE NORTH AMERICA OE 

SALES LLC, and TOYO AUTOMOTIVE PARTS 

(USA), INC., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR 

DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 1 of 86 Pg ID 1
1 

Plaintiffs Gregory Asken, Melissa Barron, Kimberly Bennett, David Bernstein, Tenisha 

Burgos, Kent Busek, Jennifer Chase, Rita Cornish, Melissa Croom, Lori Curtis, Jessica Decastro, 

Alena Farrell, Jane Fitzgerald, Carroll Gibbs, Dori Gilels, Jason Grala, Paul Gustafson, Tom 

Halverson, Curtis Harr, Andrew Hedlund, Gary Arthur Herr, Carol Ann Kashishian, Elizabeth 

Kaufman, Robert Klingler, Leonard Julian, James Marean, Nilsa Mercado, Rebecca Lynn 

Morrow, Edward Muscara, Stacey Nickell, Sophie O’Keefe-Zelman, Roger Olson, William 

Picotte, Whitney Porter, Cindy Prince, Janne Rice, Robert Rice, Jr., Frances Gammell-Roach, 

Darrel Senior, Meetesh Shah, Darcy Sherman, Erica Shoaf, Arthur Stukey, Kathleen Tawney, 

Keith Uehara, Michael Wick, Thomas Wilson and Phillip Young (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly situated (the “Classes” as defined below), upon personal 

knowledge as to the facts pertaining to themselves and upon information and belief as to all other 

matters, and based on the investigation of counsel, bring this class action for damages, injunctive 

relief, and other relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws and state antitrust, unfair competition and 

consumer protection laws, and allege as follows: 

NATURE OF ACTION 

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

Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd., Toyo Tire North America Manufacturing Inc., Toyo Tire North 

America OE Sales LLC, 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. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 2 of 86 Pg ID 2
2 

2. Plaintiffs seek to represent all persons and entities who, during the period from 

and including January 1, 2006 through such time as the anticompetitive effects of the 

Defendants’ conduct ceased (the “Class Period”), purchased or leased a new vehicle in the 

United States for personal use and not for resale which included 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. 

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. The Defendants and other coconspirators (as yet unknown) agreed, combined and conspired to fix, raise, maintain and/or 

stabilize prices, 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 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 3 of 86 Pg ID 3
3 

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 approximately $2.3 

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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

laws. 

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

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

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

antitrust injury to their business or property. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 4 of 86 Pg ID 4
4 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

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

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

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

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

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

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

federal and state law. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

found or transact business in this District. 

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

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

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 5 of 86 Pg ID 5
5 

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; or (d) 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. 

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

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

effects upon interstate commerce within the United States. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 6 of 86 Pg ID 6
6 

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

States. 

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

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

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

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

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

which conspiracy unreasonably restrained trade and adversely affected the market for 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

17. The Defendants’ conspiracy and wrongdoing described herein adversely 

affected persons in the United States who purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products for personal use and not for resale, including Plaintiffs and members of the Classes. 

PARTIES 

Plaintiffs 

18. Plaintiff Gregory Asken is a Nevada resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

19. Plaintiff Melissa Barron is a California resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

20. Plaintiff Kimberly Bennett is an Arkansas resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

21. Plaintiff David Bernstein is a Minnesota resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 7 of 86 Pg ID 7
7 

22. Plaintiff Tenisha Burgos is a New York resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

23. Plaintiff Kent Busek is a North Dakota resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

24. Plaintiff Jennifer Chase is an Iowa resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

25. Plaintiff Rita Cornish is a Utah resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

26. Plaintiff Melissa Croom is a Nebraska resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

27. Plaintiff Lori Curtis is a Missouri resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

28. Plaintiff Jessica DeCastro is a Missouri resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

29. Plaintiff Alena Farrell is a Vermont resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

30. Plaintiff Jane Fitzgerald is a Vermont resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

31. Plaintiff Carroll Gibbs is a District of Columbia resident who purchased at 

least one Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

32. Plaintiff Dori Gilels is a Montana resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 8 of 86 Pg ID 8
8 

33. Plaintiff Jason Grala is a New York resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

34. Plaintiff Paul Gustafson is an Oregon resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

35. Plaintiff Tom Halverson is an Arizona resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

36. Plaintiff Curtis Harr is a North Dakota resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

37. Plaintiff Andrew Hedlund is a South Carolina resident who purchased at least 

one Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

38. Plaintiff Gary Arthur Herr is a Florida resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

39. Plaintiff Carol Ann Kashishian is a Wisconsin resident who purchased at least 

one Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

40. Plaintiff Elizabeth Kaufman is a Florida resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

41. Plaintiff Robert Klingler is a Missouri resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

42. Plaintiff Leonard Julian is a Nevada resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

43. Plaintiff James Marean is a Maine resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 9 of 86 Pg ID 9
9 

44. Plaintiff Nilsa Mercado is a Michigan resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

45. Plaintiff Rebecca Lynn Morrow is an Arizona resident who purchased at least 

one Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

46. Plaintiff Edward Muscara is a New Hampshire resident who purchased at least 

one Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

47. Plaintiff Stacey Nickell is a West Virginia resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

48. Plaintiff Sophie O’Keefe-Zelman is an Arizona resident who purchased at least 

one Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

49. Plaintiff Roger Olson is a Michigan resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

50. Plaintiff William Picotte is a Washington resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant while a 

resident of South Dakota. 

51. Plaintiff Whitney Porter is a District of Columbia resident who purchased at 

least one Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

52. Plaintiff Cindy Prince is a Hawaii resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant while a 

resident of Oregon. 

53. Plaintiff Janne Rice is a West Virginia resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 10 of 86 Pg ID 10
10 

54. Plaintiff Robert Rice, Jr. is a West Virginia resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

55. Plaintiff Frances Gammell-Roach is a Rhode Island resident who purchased at 

least one Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one 

Defendant. 

56. Plaintiff Darrel Senior is a Kansas resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

57. Plaintiff Meetesh Shah is a California resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

58. Plaintiff Darcy Sherman is a Minnesota resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

59. Plaintiff Erica Shoaf is an Arizona resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

60. Plaintiff Arthur Stukey is a Vermont resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

61. Plaintiff Kathleen Tawney is a North Carolina resident who purchased at least 

one Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

62. Plaintiff Keith Uehara is a Hawaii resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

63. Plaintiff Michael Wick is a New Mexico resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

64. Plaintiff Thomas Wilson is a Mississippi resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 11 of 86 Pg ID 11
11 

65. Plaintiff Phillip Young is a Tennessee resident who purchased at least one 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product indirectly from at least one Defendant. 

Defendants 

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

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

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

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

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

67. Defendant Toyo Tire North America Manufacturing Inc. is a Georgia 

corporation with its principal place of business in White, Georgia. It is a subsidiary of and 

wholly owned and/or controlled by its parent, Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. Toyo Tire North 

America Manufacturing 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. 

68. Defendant Toyo Tire North America OE Sales LLC is a California company 

with its principal place of business in White, Georgia. It is a subsidiary of and wholly owned 

and/or controlled by its parent, Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. Toyo Tire North America OE 

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

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

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

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 12 of 86 Pg ID 12
12 

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. 

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

its principal place of business in Franklin, Kentyucky. 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 

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

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

71. 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. 

72. 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-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 13 of 86 Pg ID 13
13 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

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

73. “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. 

Figure 1. 

74. 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. 

75. 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. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 14 of 86 Pg ID 14
14 

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

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

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

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

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

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

77. Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Classes purchased Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products indirectly from the Defendants. By way of example, an 

owner of a vehicle may indirectly purchase one or more Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Product(s) from the Defendants as part of purchasing or leasing a new vehicle. An owner 

of a vehicle may also indirectly purchase for replacement one or more Automotive ConstantVelocity-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. 

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

78. The structure and other characteristics of the Automotive Constant-VelocityJoint 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 

Constant-Velocity-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 

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

would, under basic economic principles, attract new entrants seeking to benefit from the supra2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 15 of 86 Pg ID 15
15 

competitive 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. 

80. 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. 

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

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

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

new product. 

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

82. “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. 

83. 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. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 16 of 86 Pg ID 16
16 

84. 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. 

C. Government Investigations 

85. 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.” 

86. The DOJ Antitrust Division’s broad criminal investigation into illegal pricefixing 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 bidrigging in the automobile parts industry has yielded approximately $2.3 billion in criminal fines. 

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

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

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

automotive part, installed in automobiles sold in the United States and elsewhere. Toyo and its 

co-conspirators entered into and engaged in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and 

eliminate competition by agreeing to allocate sales of, and to fix, raise, and maintain the prices of 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products sold in the United States and elsewhere from 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 17 of 86 Pg ID 17
17 

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. 

88. 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 in Japan concerning 

prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products sold to GKN plc and its 

subsidiaries (collectively, “GKN”) in the United States and elsewhere; 

(b) agreeing during those meetings and discussions to allocate among the 

companies certain sales of certain Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products sold to 

GKN in the United States and elsewhere; 

(c) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and communications, on 

prices to be submitted to GKN in the United States and elsewhere; 

(d) discussing and exchanging prices for certain Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products sold to GKN in the United States and elsewhere; 

(e) submitting bids and price quotations to GKN in the United States and 

elsewhere in accordance with the agreements; 

(f) selling Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products1

 to GKN in the 

United States and elsewhere at collusive and noncompetitive prices; and 

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

Products2

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

prices. 

 

1

 The Information refers to automotive anti-vibration rubber products instead of automotive constant-velocity-joint 

boot products however this appears to be a typo. 

2

 The Information refers to automotive anti-vibration rubber products instead of automotive constant-velocity-joint 

boot products however this appears to be a typo. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 18 of 86 Pg ID 18
18 

D. Likely Existence of a Cooperating Defendant 

89. 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. 

90. In light of the guilty plea in this case, 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. 

E. Guilty Pleas in Related Markets in the Automotive Industry 

91. 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. 

92. 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 Department of 

Justice’s Antitrust Division, said that “[a]s a result of this international price-fixing and bidrigging 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 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 19 of 86 Pg ID 19
19 

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.” 

93. On January 30, 2012, the DOJ announced that Yazaki Corporation and 

DENSO Corporation 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 automobile manufacturers in the United States. According to the threecount felony charge against Yazaki, it engaged in three separate conspiracies: (i) to rig bids for 

and fix, stabilize and maintain the prices of automotive wire harnesses and related products; (ii) 

to rig bids for and fix, stabilize and maintain the prices of instrument panel clusters; and (iii) to 

fix, stabilize and maintain the prices of fuel senders. According to the two-count felony charge 

against DENSO Corporation, it engaged in conspiracies to rig bids for and to fix, stabilize and 

maintain the prices of electronic control units and heater control panels. 

94. In the press release announcing the fines against Yazaki Corporation and 

DENSO Corporation, Ms. Pozen vowed to continue the investigation into “pernicious cartel 

conduct that results in higher prices to American consumers . . . .” In the same press release, 

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 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[.]” 

95. Sharis A. Pozen, then the Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the 

Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, said there is no doubt consumers were hurt 

financially by the automotive wire harness price-fixing conspiracy. She further stated: “By rigging 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 20 of 86 Pg ID 20
20 

bids on wiring harnesses . . . the three companies inflated what some of their auto manufacturer 

clients paid, and indirectly, what consumers paid for some cars.” 

96. 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 fix the prices 

of speed sensor wire assemblies used on antilock brake systems installed in United States 

automobiles. 

97. On April 23, 2012, the DOJ announced that Fujikura Ltd. had agreed to plead 

guilty and to pay a $220 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices of 

automotive wire harnesses and related products installed in United States automobiles. 

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

guilty and to pay a $14.5 criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices of seatbelts, 

airbags and steering wheels installed in United States automobiles. 

99. 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 

conspiracy to fix prices of seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels installed in automobiles sold in 

the United States. 

100. 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 role in a conspiracy to fix 

prices of instrument panel clusters installed in automobiles sold in the United States and 

elsewhere. 

101. On October 30, 2012, the DOJ announced that Tokai Rika Co. Ltd. had agreed 

to plead guilty and to pay a $17.7 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices of 

heater control panels installed in automobiles sold in the United States and elsewhere. Tokai 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 21 of 86 Pg ID 21
21 

Rika also agreed to plead guilty to a charge of obstruction of justice related to the investigation 

of the antitrust violation. 

102. 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). 

103. 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 role in a conspiracy to fix 

prices of ignition coils installed in automobiles sold in the United States and elsewhere. 

104. In the press release announcing the fine against Diamond Electric Mfg. Co. 

Ltd., Robert D. Foley III, Agent in Charge, FBI Detroit Division said “[t]hose who engage in 

price fixing, bid rigging and other fraudulent schemes harm the automotive industry by driving 

up costs for vehicle makers and buyers.” 

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

$45.8 million criminal for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices of switches, steering angle sensors 

and automotive high intensity discharge (HID) ballasts installed in automobiles sold in the 

United States and elsewhere. 

106. On September 26, 2013, nine additional Japanese automotive suppliers agreed 

to plead guilty to conspiracy charges and pay more than $740 million in criminal fines for their 

roles in rigging the prices of more than 30 different products: 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 22 of 86 Pg ID 22
22 

(a) Hitachi Automotive Systems Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $195 

million criminal fine for its participation in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize and 

maintain the prices of automotive parts including starter motors, alternators, air flow meters, 

valve timing control devices, fuel injection systems, electronic throttle bodies, ignition coils, 

inverters and motor generators sold to automobile manufacturers in the United States and 

elsewhere; 

(b) Mitsuba Corporation agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $135 million 

criminal fine for its participation in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize and maintain 

the prices of windshield washer systems and components, windshield wiper systems and 

components, starter motors, power window motors and fan motors sold to automobile 

manufactures in the United States and elsewhere. Mitsuba also agreed to plead guilty to one 

count of obstruction of justice, because of the company’s efforts to destroy evidence ordered by a 

high-level U.S.-based executive after learning of the U.S. investigation of collusion in the 

automotive parts industry; 

(c) Mitsubishi Electric Corporation agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $190 

million criminal fine for its participation in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize and 

maintain the prices of automotive parts, including starter motors, alternators and ignition coils, 

sold to automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere; 

(d) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $14.5 

million criminal fine for its participation in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize and 

maintain the prices of compressors and condensers sold to automobile manufacturers in the 

United States and elsewhere; 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 23 of 86 Pg ID 23
23 

(e) T.RAD Co. Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $13.75 million 

criminal fine for its participation in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize and maintain 

the prices of radiators and automatic transmission fluid warmers (ATF warmers) sold to 

automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere; 

(f) Valeo Japan Co. Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $13.6 million 

criminal fine for its participation in a conspiracy to allocate the supply of, rig bids for, and to fix, 

stabilize and maintain the prices of air conditioning systems sold to automobile manufacturers in 

the United States and elsewhere; 

(g) Jtekt Corporation agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $103.27 million 

criminal fine for its participation in a conspiracy to allocate markets, to rig bids for, and to fix, 

stabilize and maintain the prices of bearings and electric powered steering assemblies sold to 

automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere; 

(h) NSK Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $68.2 million criminal fine 

for its participation in a conspiracy to allocate markets, to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize and 

maintain the prices of bearings sold to an automobile manufacturer in the United States and 

elsewhere; and 

(i) Yamashita Rubber Co. Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $11 million 

criminal fine for its participation in a conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix, raise and maintain the 

prices of automotive anti-vibration rubber products sold in the United States and elsewhere to 

automobile manufacturers. 

107. On the same day, September 26, 2013, United States Attorney General Eric 

Holder in the Antitrust Division presented the DOJ’s most recent findings in the ongoing 

automotive parts investigation. He stated “[t]hese international price-fixing conspiracies affected 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 24 of 86 Pg ID 24
24 

more than $5 billion in automobile parts sold to U.S. car manufacturers. In total, more than 25 

million cars purchased by American consumers were affected by the illegal conduct.” Holder 

also described how the conspiracies worked: “[c]ompany executives met face to face in the 

United States and Japan – and talked on the phone – to reach collusive agreements to rig bids, fix 

prices and allocate the supply of auto parts sold to U.S. car companies. In order to keep their 

illegal conduct secret, they used code names and met in remote locations. Then they followed up 

with each other regularly to make sure the collusive agreements were being adhered to.” 

Attorney General Holder explained that the automotive parts conspiracies “targeted U.S. 

manufacturing, U.S. businesses and U.S. consumers. As a result of these conspiracies, 

Americans paid more for their cars.” 

108. The diagram below, which was prepared by the DOJ, illustrates the September 

26, 2013 guilty pleas and the corresponding automotive parts to which the various manufacturers 

have admitted price-fixing. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 25 of 86 Pg ID 25
25 

109. 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 

role in a conspiracy to price-fix seatbelts. 

110. 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, one of which, the 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products price fixing conspiracy, is the subject of this 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 26 of 86 Pg ID 26
26 

Complaint. The other price fixing conspiracy involved automotive anti-vibration rubber 

products installed in automobiles sold in the United States and elsewhere. 

111. On November 27, 2013, the DOJ announced that Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. had 

agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $1.44 million criminal fine for its participation in a 

conspiracy to fix prices of automotive high-intensity discharge (HID) lamp ballasts installed in 

automobiles sold in the United States and elsewhere. 

112. On January 16, 2014, the DOJ announced that Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 

had agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $56.6 million criminal fine for its roles in separate pricefixing conspiracies involving automobile lighting fixtures and automotive high-intensity 

discharge (HID) lamp ballasts installed in cars sold in the United States and elsewhere. 

113. On February 3, 2014, the DOJ announced that Aisan Industry Co. Ltd. had 

agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $6.86 million criminal fine for its role in a price-fixing 

conspiracy involving electronic throttle bodies sold to an automobile manufacturer in the United 

States and elsewhere. 

114. On February 13, 2014, the DOJ announced that Bridgestone Corp. had agreed 

to plead guilty and to pay a $425 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices of 

automotive anti-vibration rubber products installed in automobiles sold in the United States and 

elsewhere. 

115. On April 23, 2014, the DOJ announced that Showa Corp. agreed to plead 

guilty and to pay a $19.9 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices and rig 

bids for pinion-assist type electric powered steering assemblies installed in cars sold in the 

United States and elsewhere. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 27 of 86 Pg ID 27
27 

116. To date, twenty-seven companies and thirty-three executives have been 

charged in the Antitrust Division’s ongoing investigation into price fixing and bid rigging in the 

auto parts industry. Each of the twenty-seven companies has agreed to plead guilty and 

altogether, they have agreed to pay approximately $2.3 billion in criminal fines. Twenty-three of 

the thirty-three executives have been sentenced to serve time in U.S. prisons or have entered into 

plea agreements. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

117. 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 persons and entities who, during the Class Period, purchased or 

leased a new vehicle in the United States for personal use and not 

for resale which included one or more Automotive ConstantVelocity-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 a Defendant, any current or former subsidiary of a Defendant or 

any co-conspirator of the Defendants. 

118. 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 

state antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws on behalf of the following class 

(the “Damages Class”): 

All persons and entities who, during the Class Period, purchased or 

leased a new vehicle in the Indirect Purchaser States3

 for personal 

use and not for resale which included one or more Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product(s) as a component part, or 

indirectly purchased one or more Automotive Constant-Velocity-

 

3

 The Indirect Purchaser States are the states listed in the Second and Third Claims for Relief. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 28 of 86 Pg ID 28
28 

Joint Boot Product(s) as a replacement part, which were 

manufactured or sold by a Defendant, any current or former 

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

119. 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, and persons 

who purchased Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products directly or for resale. 

120. 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. 

121. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Classes. This 

is particularly true given the nature of the Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ conspiracy, 

which was generally applicable to all the members of both Classes, thereby making appropriate 

relief with respect to the Classes as a whole. Such questions of law and fact common to the 

Classes include, but are not limited to: 

(a) Whether the Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a combination 

and conspiracy among themselves to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products sold in the United States; 

(b) The identity of the participants of the alleged conspiracy; 

(c) The duration of the alleged conspiracy and the acts carried out by the 

Defendants and their co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy; 

(d) Whether the alleged conspiracy violated the Sherman Act, as alleged in the 

First Claim for Relief; 

(e) Whether the alleged conspiracy violated state antitrust and unfair competition 

law, and/or state consumer protection law, as alleged in the Second and Third Claims for Relief; 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 29 of 86 Pg ID 29
29 

(f) 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; 

(g) The effect of the alleged conspiracy on the prices of Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products sold in the United States during the Class Period; 

(h) Whether Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes had any reason to know or 

suspect the conspiracy, or any means to discover the conspiracy; 

(i) Whether the Defendants and their co-conspirators fraudulently concealed the 

conspiracy’s existence from Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes; 

(j) The appropriate injunctive and related equitable relief for the Nationwide 

Class; and 

(k) The appropriate class-wide measure of damages for the Damages Class. 

122. 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. 

123. Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the same common course of conduct giving rise 

to the claims of the other members of the Classes. Plaintiffs’ interests are coincident with, and 

not antagonistic to, those of the other members of the Classes. Plaintiffs are represented by 

counsel who are competent and experienced in the prosecution of antitrust and class action 

litigation. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 30 of 86 Pg ID 30
30 

124. 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. 

125. 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. 

126. 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 

127. 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; and 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 31 of 86 Pg ID 31
31 

(d) Indirect purchasers of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

paid artificially inflated prices. 

128. During the Class Period, Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes paid 

supracompetitive prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. These inflated 

prices have been passed on to them by Tier 1 Manufacturers, OEMs and dealers. 

129. The markets for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products and 

vehicles are inextricably linked and intertwined because the market for Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products exists to serve the vehicle market. Without the vehicles, 

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-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. As stated in the 2010 Annual Report of Lear 

Corporation, an automobile parts supplier: “Our sales are driven by the number of vehicles 

produced by the automotive manufacturers, which is ultimately dependent on consumer fleet 

demand for automotive vehicles.” 

130. 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. 

131. 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 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 32 of 86 Pg ID 32
32 

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. 

132. While even a monopolist would increase its prices when the cost of its inputs 

increased, the economic necessity of passing through cost changes increases with the degree of 

competition a firm faces. The OEM and dealer markets for new motor vehicles are subject to 

vigorous price competition. The OEMs and dealers have thin net margins, and are therefore at 

the mercy of their component costs, such that increases in the price of components such as 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products lead to corresponding increases in prices for 

new motor vehicles and replacement parts at the OEM and dealer levels. When downstream 

distribution markets are highly competitive, as they are in the case of new motor vehicles 

containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products as components, overcharges are 

passed through to ultimate consumers, such as the indirect-purchaser Plaintiffs and members of 

the Classes. 

133. Hence the inflated prices of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products both in new motor vehicles and those purchased for repair resulting from the 

Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ bid-rigging and price-fixing conspiracy have been passed 

on to Plaintiffs and other class members by Tier 1 Manufacturers, OEMs and dealers. 

134. The economic and legal literature has recognized that unlawful overcharges in 

a component normally result in higher prices for products containing that price-fixed component. 

Two antitrust scholars – Professors Robert G. Harris (Professor Emeritus and former Chair of the 

Business and Public Policy Group at the Haas School of Business at the University of California 

at Berkeley) and the late Lawrence A. Sullivan (Professor of Law Emeritus at Southwestern Law 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 33 of 86 Pg ID 33
33 

School and author of the Handbook of the Law of Antitrust) – have observed that “in a multiplelevel chain of distribution, passing on monopoly overcharges is not the exception: it is the rule.”4

135. As Professor Jeffrey K. MacKie-Mason (Arthur W. Burks Professor for 

Information and Computer Science and Professor of Economics and Public Certification), an 

expert who presented evidence in a number of indirect purchaser cases involving Microsoft 

Corporation, said (in a passage quoted in the judicial decision in that case granting class 

certification):

As is well known in economic theory and practice, at least some of 

the overcharge will be passed on by distributors to end consumers. 

When the distribution markets are highly competitive, as they are 

here, all or nearly the entire overcharge will be passed on through 

to ultimate consumers. . . . Both of Microsoft’s experts also agree 

upon the economic phenomenon of cost pass through, and how it 

works in competitive markets. This general phenomenon of cost 

pass through is well established in antitrust laws and economics as 

well. 

136. 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 

 

4

 Robert G. Harris & Lawrence A. Sullivan, Passing on the Monopoly Overcharge: A 

Comprehensive Policy Analysis, 128 U. PA. L. REV. 268, 275 (1979). 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 34 of 86 Pg ID 34
34 

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, it is possible to 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. 

137. 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 the amount of the supracompetitive charge passed through the chain of 

distribution. Thus, the economic harm to Plaintiffs and class members can be quantified. 

138. In addition to the regression analysis discussed above demonstrating impact on 

consumers, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, which has been investigating 

anticompetitive conduct in the automotive parts industry for some time, has concluded that 

there is “no doubt” that consumers were hurt financially. Sharis A. Pozen, then the Acting 

Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division said there 

is no doubt consumers were hurt financially by the automotive wire harness price-fixing 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 35 of 86 Pg ID 35
35 

conspiracy. “By rigging bids . . . [automotive parts manufacturers engaged in a price-fixing 

conspiracy] inflated what some of their auto manufacturing clients paid, and indirectly, what 

consumers paid for some cars,” Ms. Pozen said. She also explained 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.” In a separate press statement, Ms. Pozen vowed to 

continue the investigation into “pernicious cartel conduct that results in higher prices to 

American consumers . . . .” 

139. 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). 

140. On September 26, 2013, United States Attorney General Eric Holder in the 

Antitrust Division presented the DOJ’s most recent findings in the ongoing automotive parts 

investigation. He stated “[t]hese international price-fixing conspiracies affected more than $5 

billion in automobile parts sold to U.S. car manufacturers. In total, more than 25 million cars 

purchased by American consumers were affected by the illegal conduct.” Holder also described 

how the conspiracies worked: “[c]ompany executives met face to face in the United States and 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 36 of 86 Pg ID 36
36 

Japan – and talked on the phone – to reach collusive agreements to rig bids, fix prices and 

allocate the supply of auto parts sold to U.S. car companies. In order to keep their illegal conduct 

secret, they used code names and met in remote locations. Then they followed up with each other 

regularly to make sure the collusive agreements were being adhered to.” Attorney General 

Holder explained that the automotive parts conspiracies “targeted U.S. manufacturing, U.S. 

businesses and U.S. consumers. As a result of these conspiracies, Americans paid more for their 

cars.” 

141. 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. 

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 

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

143. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes had no knowledge of the Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products combination or conspiracy alleged herein, or of facts 

sufficient to place them on inquiry notice of the claims arising from the alleged conspiracy to fix 

prices of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 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. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 37 of 86 Pg ID 37
37 

144. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes are purchasers who purchased or 

leased 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 Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products 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. 

145. 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 Tier 1 Manufacturers, OEMs or other direct purchasers, much less the 

fact that they and their co-conspirators had engaged in the combination and conspiracy alleged 

herein. 

146. 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 

147. 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 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 38 of 86 Pg ID 38
38 

reasonable diligence, the existence of the Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 

conspiracy alleged herein until November 26, 2013, the date that the DOJ publicly announced 

Defendant Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd.’s anticipated guilty plea. 

148. Before that time, Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes were unaware of 

the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, and 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 ever made 

available to Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes that even hinted to Plaintiffs that they were 

being injured by the Defendants’ unlawful conduct. 

149. 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. 

150. Specifically, as Attorney General Holder explained in connection with the 

DOJ’s globally coordinated investigation into price-fixing in the Automotive parts industry, “[i]n 

order to keep their illegal conduct secret, [Defendants] used code names and met in remote 

locations.” 

151. 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 the Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products industry 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 Constant2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 39 of 86 Pg ID 39
39 

Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices before November 26, 2013, the date that the DOJ publicly 

announced Defendant Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd.’s anticipated guilty plea.. 

152. 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. 

153. Because the alleged Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product 

conspiracy was both self-concealing and affirmatively concealed by the Defendants and their coconspirators, 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. 

154. For these reasons, the statute of limitations applicable to Plaintiffs’ and the 

Classes’ claims with respect to the alleged Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product 

conspiracy 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) 

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

156. 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). 

157. 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 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 40 of 86 Pg ID 40
40 

their officers, agents, employees, or representatives while actively engaged in the management of 

their affairs. 

158. 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. 

159. 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 ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products throughout the United States. 

160. The conspiratorial acts and combinations have caused unreasonable restraints 

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

161. 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. 

162. 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. 

163. The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ conspiracy had the following 

effects, among others: 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 41 of 86 Pg ID 41
41 

(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 

(c) Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class who purchased Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products indirectly from the Defendants and their co-conspirators 

have been deprived of the benefits of free and open competition. 

164. 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. 

165. The alleged contract, combination, or conspiracy is a per se violation of the 

federal antitrust laws. 

166. 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) 

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

168. 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 and 

other statutes set forth below. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 42 of 86 Pg ID 42
42 

169. 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. 

170. 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-Velocity-Joint 

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; 

(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. 

171. 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. 

172. The Defendants’ anticompetitive acts described above were knowing and 

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

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

violation of the Arizona Revised Statutes, §§ 44-1401, et seq. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 43 of 86 Pg ID 43
43 

(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 ConstantVelocity-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. 

(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.

174. 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 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 44 of 86 Pg ID 44
44 

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 

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 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 45 of 86 Pg ID 45
45 

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. 

175. 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 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout the District of Columbia; (2) 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and 

stabilized at artificially high levels throughout the District of Columbia; (3) Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

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

affected District of Columbia commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of District of Columbia Code Ann. §§ 28-4501, et seq. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 46 of 86 Pg ID 46
46 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all forms of relief available 

under District of Columbia Code Ann. §§ 28-4501, et seq.

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

violation of the Iowa Code §§ 553.1, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Iowa; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Iowa; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were 

deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products. 

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

affected Iowa commerce. 

(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.

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

violation of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, §§ 50-101, et seq. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 47 of 86 Pg ID 47
47 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Kansas; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Kansas; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were 

deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products. 

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

affected Kansas commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(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.

178. 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 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 48 of 86 Pg ID 48
48 

artificially high levels throughout Maine; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were 

deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products. 

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

affected Maine commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. 10, §§ 1101, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Maine Rev. Stat. 

Ann. 10, §§ 1101, et seq.

179. 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. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 49 of 86 Pg ID 49
49 

(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. 

180. 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. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 50 of 86 Pg ID 50
50 

(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. 

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

violation of the Mississippi Code Annotated §§ 75-21-1, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Mississippi; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Mississippi; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products. 

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

affected Mississippi commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 51 of 86 Pg ID 51
51 

(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.

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

violation of the Nebraska Revised Statutes §§ 59-801, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Nebraska; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Nebraska; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products. 

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

affected Nebraska commerce. 

(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.

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 52 of 86 Pg ID 52
52 

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

violation of the Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 598A.010, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Nevada; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Nevada; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products. 

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

affected Nevada commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(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.

184. 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 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 53 of 86 Pg ID 53
53 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout New Hampshire; (2) 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and 

stabilized at artificially high levels throughout New Hampshire; (3) Plaintiffs and members of 

the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members 

of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products. 

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

affected New Hampshire commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of New Hampshire Revised Statutes §§ 356:1, et seq. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under New 

Hampshire Revised Statutes §§ 356:1, et seq. 

185. 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 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 54 of 86 Pg ID 54
54 

Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products. 

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

affected New Mexico commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of New Mexico Stat. Ann. §§ 57-1-1, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under New Mexico Stat. 

Ann. §§ 57-1-1, et seq. 

186. 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 

were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products when they purchased vehicles containing Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products, or purchased products that were otherwise of lower quality than they would have 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 55 of 86 Pg ID 55
55 

been absent the Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ illegal acts, or were unable to purchase 

products that they would have otherwise have purchased absent the illegal conduct. 

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

affected New York commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of the New York Donnelly Act, §§ 340, et seq. The conduct set 

forth above is a per se violation of the Act. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class seek all relief available under New York Gen. Bus. Law §§ 340, et seq. 

187. 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 were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of 

the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products. 

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

affected North Carolina commerce. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 56 of 86 Pg ID 56
56 

(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. 

188. 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. 

(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-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 57 of 86 Pg ID 57
57 

(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. 

189. 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. 

(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. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 58 of 86 Pg ID 58
58 

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

violation of the South Dakota Codified Laws §§ 37-1-3.1, et seq. 

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout South Dakota; (2) 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and 

stabilized at artificially high levels throughout South Dakota; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of 

the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on South Dakota commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(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. 

191. 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 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 59 of 86 Pg ID 59
59 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Tennessee; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Tennessee; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on Tennessee commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of Tennessee Code Ann. §§ 47-25-101, et seq. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under Tennessee Code 

Ann. §§ 47-25-101, et seq. 

192. 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 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 60 of 86 Pg ID 60
60 

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. 

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

violation of the Vermont Stat. Ann. 9 §§ 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. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 61 of 86 Pg ID 61
61 

(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 Vermont Stat. Ann. 9 §§ 2453, 

et seq. 

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

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

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout West Virginia; (2) 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and 

stabilized at artificially high levels throughout West Virginia; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the 

Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of 

the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(b) During the Class Period, the Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on West Virginia commerce. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business and property 

and are threatened with further injury. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 62 of 86 Pg ID 62
62 

(d) By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have entered into agreements 

in restraint of trade in violation of West Virginia §§ 47-18-1, et seq. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under West Virginia §§ 47-18-1, et seq. 

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

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

(a) The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ combinations or conspiracies 

had the following effects: (1) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Wisconsin; (2) Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at 

artificially high levels throughout Wisconsin; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class 

were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages 

Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint 

Boot Products. 

(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. 

196. 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 co2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 63 of 86 Pg ID 63
63 

conspirators’ 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. 

197. 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. 

198. 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) 

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

200. The Defendants 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. 

201. Defendants have knowingly entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of 

trade in violation of the Arkansas Code Annotated, § 4-88-101. 

(a) Defendants knowingly agreed to, and did in fat, 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, 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 64 of 86 Pg ID 64
64 

distributed, or obtained in Arkansas and took efforts to conceal their agreements from Plaintiffs 

and members of the Damages Class. 

(b) The aforementioned conduct on the part of the Defendants constituted 

“unconscionable” and “deceptive” acts or practices in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated, § 

4-88-107(a)(10). 

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

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

eliminated throughout Arkansas; (2) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products 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. 

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

Arkansas commerce and consumers. 

(e) As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of the 

Defendants, Plaintiff and the members of the Damages Class have been injured in their business 

and property and are threatened with further injury. 

(f) 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. 

202. 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. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 65 of 86 Pg ID 65
65 

(a) During the Class Period, the Defendants committed and continue to 

commit acts of unfair competition, as defined by Sections 17200, et seq. of the California 

Business and Professions Code, by engaging in the acts and practices specified above. 

(b) This claim is instituted pursuant to Sections 17203 and 17204 of the 

California Business and Professions Code, to obtain restitution from the Defendants for acts, as 

alleged herein, that violated Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, 

commonly known as the Unfair Competition Law. 

(c) The Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein violated Section 17200. The 

acts, omissions, misrepresentations, practices and non-disclosures of the Defendants, as alleged 

herein, constituted a common, continuous, and continuing course of conduct of unfair 

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 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 66 of 86 Pg ID 66
66 

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

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

(g) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class are entitled to full restitution 

and/or disgorgement of all revenues, earnings, profits, compensation, and benefits that may have 

been obtained by the Defendants as a result of such business acts or practices. 

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

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

(i) The unlawful and unfair business practices of the Defendants have caused 

and continue to cause Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class to pay supracompetitive 

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

vehicles containing them). Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class suffered injury in 

fact and lost money or property as a result of such unfair competition. 

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

Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. 

(k) As alleged in this Complaint, the Defendants and their co-conspirators 

have been unjustly enriched as a result of their wrongful conduct and by the Defendants’ unfair 

competition. Plaintiffs and the members of the Damages Class are accordingly entitled to 

equitable relief including restitution and/or disgorgement of all revenues, earnings, profits, 

compensation, and benefits that may have been obtained by the Defendants as a result of such 

business practices, pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code, Sections 17203 and 

17204. 

203. The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, 

or deceptive acts or practices in violation of District of Columbia Code § 28-3901, et seq. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 67 of 86 Pg ID 67
67 

(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/or non-competitive levels, the prices at which Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products were sold, distributed or obtained in the District of Columbia. 

(b) The foregoing conduct constitutes “unlawful trade practices,” within the 

meaning of D.C. Code § 28-3904. 

(c) The Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price 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 the Damages Class were deprived of free 

and open competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and 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’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured and are threatened with further 

injury. The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in violation of District of Columbia Code § 28-3901, et seq., and, accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

204. 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, 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 68 of 86 Pg ID 68
68 

and eliminated throughout Florida; (2) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product prices 

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

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open competition; and 

(4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated 

prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

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

affected Florida commerce and consumers. 

(c) As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class have been injured and are threatened with further 

injury. 

(d) The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive 

acts or practices in violation of Florida Stat. § 501.201, et seq., and, accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

205. The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, 

or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Hawaii Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 480-1, 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 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. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 69 of 86 Pg ID 69
69 

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

affected Hawaii 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. 

(d) The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive 

acts or practices in violation of Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 480, et seq., and, accordingly, Plaintiffs and 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

206. The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, 

or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. 

Stat. § 407.010, et. seq.

(a) Plaintiffs and the Damages Class purchased Automotive ConstantVelocity-Joint Boot Products for personal, family, or household purposes. 

(b) The Defendants engaged in the conduct described herein in connection 

with the sale of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products in trade or commerce in a 

market that includes Missouri. 

(c) The Defendants and their co-conspirators agreed to, and did in fact, affect, 

fix, control, and/or maintain, at artificial and non-competitive levels, the prices at which 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products were sold, distributed, or obtained in 

Missouri, which conduct constituted unfair practices in that it was unlawful under federal and 

state law, violated public policy, was unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous, and caused 

substantial injury to Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 70 of 86 Pg ID 70
70 

(d) The Defendants concealed, suppressed, and omitted 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 

concealed, suppressed, and omitted facts would have been important to Plaintiffs and members 

of the Damages Class as they related to the cost of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products they purchased. 

(e) The Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price competition was restrained, suppressed, 

and eliminated throughout Missouri; (2) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product 

prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout 

Missouri; (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. 

(f) The foregoing acts and practices constituted unlawful practices in 

violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. 

(g) As a direct and proximate result of the above-described unlawful 

practices, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class suffered ascertainable loss of money or 

property. 

(h) Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief 

available under Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act, specifically Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.020, 

which prohibits “the act, use or employment by any person of any deception, fraud, false 

pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice or the concealment, suppression, or 

omission of any material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise in 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 71 of 86 Pg ID 71
71 

trade or commerce...,” as further interpreted by the Missouri Code of State Regulations, 15 CSR 

60-7.010, et seq., 15 CSR 60-8.010, et seq., and 15 CSR 60-9.010, et seq., and Mo. Rev. Stat. § 

407.025, which provides for the relief sought in this count. 

207. The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, 

or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Montana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer 

Protection Act of 1970, Mont. Code, §§ 30-14-103, et seq., and §§ 30-14-201, 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 Montana; (2) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product 

prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout 

Montana; (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 Montana 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. 

(d) The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive 

acts or practices in violation of Mont. Code, §§ 30-14-103, et seq., and §§ 30-14-201, et. seq., 

and, accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under 

that statute. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 72 of 86 Pg ID 72
72 

208. 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. 

(b) 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. 

(c) 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. 

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

affected New Mexico commerce and consumers. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 73 of 86 Pg ID 73
73 

(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 and are 

threatened with further injury. 

(f) 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. 

209. The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, 

or deceptive acts or practices in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, et seq.

(a) The Defendants and their co-conspirators agree to, and did in fact, act in 

restraint of trade or commerce by affecting, fixing, controlling and/or maintaining, at artificial 

and non-competitive levels, the prices at which Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products were sold, distributed or obtained in New York and took efforts to conceal their 

agreements from Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class. 

(b) 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 consumer injury 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. 

(c) 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 were deprived of free and open 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 74 of 86 Pg ID 74
74 

competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

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

affected New York commerce and consumers. 

(e) 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. 

(f) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available 

pursuant to N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 (h). 

210. 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. 

(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 

consumer injury and broad adverse impact on the public at large, and harmed the public interest 

of North Carolina consumers 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, 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 75 of 86 Pg ID 75
75 

and eliminated throughout North Carolina; (2) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product 

prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout North 

Carolina; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open 

competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

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

affected North Carolina commerce and consumers. 

(e) 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. 

(f) 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. 

211. The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, 

or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Rhode Island Unfair Trade Practice and 

Consumer Protection Act, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 6-13.1-1, et seq.

(a) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class purchased Automotive 

Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products for personal, family, or household purposes. 

(b) The Defendants and their co-conspirators agreed to, and did in fact, act in 

restraint of trade or commerce in a market that includes Rhode Island, by affecting, fixing, 

controlling, and/or maintaining, at artificial and non-competitive levels, the prices at which 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 76 of 86 Pg ID 76
76 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products were sold, distributed, or obtained in Rhode 

Island. 

(c) 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, and considering the relative lack of sophistication of the average, nonbusiness purchaser, they breached that duty by their silence. The Defendants misrepresented to 

all purchasers during the Class Period that their Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Product prices were competitive and fair. 

(d) The Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) 

Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product price competition was restrained, suppressed, 

and eliminated throughout Rhode Island; (2) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Product 

prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Rhode 

Island; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open 

competition; and (4) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class paid supracompetitive, 

artificially inflated prices for Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products. 

(e) 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. 

(f) The Defendants’ deception, including their omissions concerning the 

prices of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products, likely misled all purchasers acting 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 77 of 86 Pg ID 77
77 

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’ 

omissions constitute information important to Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class as 

they related to the cost of Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products they purchased. 

(g) The Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive 

acts or practices in violation of Rhode Island Gen. Laws. § 6-13.1-1, et seq., and, accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

212. 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) Defendants’ combinations or conspiracies had the following effects: (1) 

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

and eliminated throughout South Carolina; (2) Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot 

Products 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. 

(b) During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial 

effect on South Carolina commerce. 

(c) As a Direction 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. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 78 of 86 Pg ID 78
78 

(d) 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, Plaintiff and the 

members of the Damages Class seek all relief available under that statute. 

213. 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, and considering the relative lack of sophistication of the average, nonbusiness purchaser, 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 

Vermont; (3) Plaintiffs and members of the Damages Class were deprived of free and open 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 79 of 86 Pg ID 79
79 

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 

prices 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. 

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 

adjudged and decreed: 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 80 of 86 Pg ID 80
80 

(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) 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, 

including disgorgement of profits the Defendants obtained as a result of their acts of unfair 

competition; 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 81 of 86 Pg ID 81
81 

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. 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 82 of 86 Pg ID 82
82 

DATED: April 30, 2014 THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.

By /s/ E. Powell Miller 

E. Powell Miller (P39487) 

Adam T. Schnatz (P72049) 

950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 

Rochester, Michigan 48307 

Telephone: (248) 841-2200 

Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 

epm@millerlawpc.com 

ats@millerlawpc.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Interim Liaison 

Counsel for the Proposed End-Payor Plaintiffs 

Classes 

Hollis Salzman 

Bernard Persky 

William V. Reiss 

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI 

L.L.P. 

601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400 

New York, NY 10022 

Telephone: (212) 980-7400 

Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 

hsalzman@rkmc.com 

bpersky@rkmc.com 

wvreiss@rkmc.com 

Marc M. Seltzer 

Steven G. Sklaver 

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 

1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 

Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029

Telephone: (310) 789-3100 

Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 

mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com 

ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 83 of 86 Pg ID 83
83 

Terrell W. Oxford 

Warren T. Burns 

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 

901 Main Street, Suite 5100 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Telephone: (214) 754-1900 

Facsimile: (214)754-1933 

toxford@susmangodfrey.com 

wburns@susmangodfrey.com 

Frank C. Damrell 

Steven N. Williams 

Adam J. Zapala 

Elizabeth Tran 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

San Francisco Airport Office Center 

840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 

Burlingame, CA 94010

Telephone: (650) 697-6000 

Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 

fdamrell@cpmlegal.com 

swilliams@cpmlegal.com 

azapala@cpmlegal.com 

etran@cpmlegal.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Interim Co-Lead 

Class Counsel for the Proposed End-Payor 

Plaintiffs Classes 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 84 of 86 Pg ID 84
1 

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: April 30, 2014 THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.

By /s/ E. Powell Miller 

E. Powell Miller (P39487) 

Adam T. Schnatz (P72049) 

950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 

Rochester, Michigan 48307 

Telephone: (248) 841-2200 

Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 

epm@millerlawpc.com 

ats@millerlawpc.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Interim Liaison 

Counsel for the Proposed End-Payor Plaintiffs 

Classes 

Hollis Salzman 

Bernard Persky 

William V. Reiss 

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI 

L.L.P. 

601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400 

New York, NY 10022 

Telephone: (212) 980-7400 

Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 

hsalzman@rkmc.com 

bpersky@rkmc.com 

wvreiss@rkmc.com 

Marc M. Seltzer 

Steven G. Sklaver 

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 

1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 

Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029

Telephone: (310) 789-3100 

Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 

mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com 

ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com 

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 85 of 86 Pg ID 85
2 

Terrell W. Oxford 

Warren T. Burns 

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 

901 Main Street, Suite 5100 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Telephone: (214) 754-1900 

Facsimile: (214)754-1933 

toxford@susmangodfrey.com 

wburns@susmangodfrey.com 

Frank C. Damrell 

Steven N. Williams 

Adam J. Zapala 

Elizabeth Tran

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

San Francisco Airport Office Center 

840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 

Burlingame, CA 94010

Telephone: (650) 697-6000 

Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 

fdamrell@cpmlegal.com 

swilliams@cpmlegal.com 

azapala@cpmlegal.com 

etran@cpmlegal.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Interim Co-Lead 

Class Counsel for the Proposed End-Payor 

Plaintiffs Classes

2:14-cv-11721-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 86 of 86 Pg ID 86