UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALL EUROPEAN AUTO SUPPLY, INC.,

individually and on behalf of a class of all others 

similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DENSO CORPORATION, DENSO

INTERNATIONAL AMERICA INC., DENSO 

INTERNATIONAL KOREA CORPORATION,

ASMO NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ASMO NORTH 

CAROLINA, INC., MITSUBA CORPORATION,

AMERICAN MITSUBA CORPORATION, 

ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, BOSCH ELECTRICAL 

DRIVES CO., LTD., and ROBERT BOSCH LLC,

 Defendants.

Case No. ____________________

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff All European Auto Supply, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of the 

proposed class of direct purchasers of Power Window Motors (as defined below), brings this 

action against Defendants DENSO Corporation, DENSO International America Inc., DENSO 

International Korea Corporation, ASMO North America, LLC, ASMO North Carolina, Inc., 

Mitsuba Corporation, American Mitsuba Corporation, Robert Bosch GmbH, Bosch Electrical 

Drives Co., Ltd., and Robert Bosch LLC (collectively, “Defendants”), and other unnamed coconspirators, for damages under the antitrust laws of the United States and demands a jury trial, 

and, upon personal information as to the facts pertaining to itself and upon information and belief 

as to all other matters, hereby alleges as follows:

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 1 of 25 Pg ID 1
2

INTRODUCTION

1. The United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), in conjunction with various 

domestic and foreign governmental agencies, is currently conducting an investigation into the 

automotive parts industry that one DOJ official described as “appear[ing] to be the biggest 

criminal antitrust investigation that we’ve ever encountered.” The DOJ’s investigation 

encompasses a wide array of automotive parts and has already yielded billions of dollars in 

criminal fines as well as dozens of prison sentences. 

2. Some of the parts being investigated include “Power Window Motors,” which are 

small electric motors used to raise and lower windows in a motor vehicle.

3. Defendants are competing manufacturers of Power Window Motors sold 

throughout the United States, or installed in motor vehicles manufactured or sold throughout the 

United States, that, together with their as-yet unknown co-conspirators, entered into an 

agreement, combination, or conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices, rig bids, 

and allocate the market and customers in the United States for Power Window Motors. This 

agreement, combination, or conspiracy constituted an unreasonable restraint of interstate trade 

and foreign trade and commerce in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.

4. Defendant Mitsuba Corporation has already pled guilty to participating in a 

conspiracy to rig bids for, and to fix stabilize, and maintain the prices of, Power Window Motors

(and other automotive parts) in violation of the Sherman Act, and paid a $135 million criminal 

fine. 

5. Defendants DENSO Corporation and Robert Bosch GmbH have already pled 

guilty to participating in conspiracies to rig bids for, and to fix stabilize, and maintain the prices 

of, various other automotive parts in violation of the Sherman Act.

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 2 of 25 Pg ID 2
3

6. As a direct and foreseeable result of the unlawful and anticompetitive conduct 

alleged herein, Plaintiff and others like it paid artificially inflated prices for Power Window 

Motors during the period starting at least as early as January 1, 2000 and continuing to the 

present (the “Class Period”).

7. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of direct purchasers consisting of all persons 

and entities who, during the Class Period, purchased Power Window Motors in the United States 

from one or more of the Defendants or their co-conspirators. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. Plaintiff brings this action to obtain injunctive relief and to recover treble 

damages, costs of suit, and reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees, resulting from Defendants’ 

violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.

9. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 4 

and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 26, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.

10. The Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants as each of them, 

either directly or through the ownership or control of their United States subsidiaries, (a) resides 

in this District, (b) transacted business throughout the United States, including in this District, (c) 

sold or marketed substantial quantities of Power Window Motors throughout the United States, 

including in this District, (d) committed overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy alleged herein 

in the United States, including in this District, (e) was engaged in a conspiracy that was directed 

at, and had a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable and intended effect of causing injury 

to the business or property of persons and entities throughout the United States, including in this 

District, or (f) had substantial aggregate contacts with the United States as a whole, including in 

this District.

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 3 of 25 Pg ID 3
4

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 Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District, one or more of the Defendants reside in this 

District, and a substantial portion of the affected interstate trade and commerce has been carried 

out in this District. 

PARTIES

Plaintiff

12. Plaintiff All European Auto Supply, Inc. (“AEAS”) is a Michigan corporation 

with its principal place of business in Royal Oak, Michigan. AEAS purchased Power Window 

Motors directly from one or more of the Defendants and/or their co-conspirators during the Class 

Period and suffered injury as a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct.

Defendants

The DENSO Defendants

13. Defendant DENSO Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal place 

of business in Kariya, Japan. DENSO Corporation – directly and/or through its subsidiaries, 

which it wholly owned and/or controlled – manufactured, marketed, and/or sold Power Window 

Motors that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this District, during the 

Class Period. 

14. Defendant DENSO International America, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its 

principal place of business in Southfield, Michigan. DENSO International America, Inc., a 

wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant DENSO Corporation, manufactured, marketed, and/or 

sold Power Window Motors that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this 

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 4 of 25 Pg ID 4
5

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 parent company.

15. Defendant DENSO International Korea Corporation is a Korean corporation with 

its principal place of business in Uiwang-si, South Korea. DENSO International Korea 

Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant DENSO Corporation, manufactured, 

marketed, and/or sold Power Window Motors 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 parent company.

16. ASMO North America, LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of 

business in Statesville, North Carolina. ASMO North America, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary 

of ASMO Co., Ltd. (a subsidiary of Defendant DENSO Corporation), is the parent company of 

Defendant ASMO North Carolina, Inc. According to its website, ASMO North America, LLC 

“coordinates the business activities of all affiliates in North America.” ASMO North America, 

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

manufactured, marketed, and/or sold Power Window Motors that were purchased throughout the 

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

17. ASMO North Carolina, Inc. is a North Carolina corporation with its principal 

place of business in Statesville, North Carolina. ASMO North Carolina, Inc., a subsidiary of 

ASMO North America, LLC, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold Power Window Motors that 

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

At all times during the Class Period, the activities of ASMO North Carolina, Inc. were under the 

control and direction of its parent ASMO North America, LLC and/or its ultimate corporate 

parent DENSO Corporation.

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 5 of 25 Pg ID 5
6

18. Defendants DENSO Corporation, DENSO International America, Inc., DENSO 

International Korea Corporation, ASMO North America, LLC, and ASMO North Carolina, Inc. 

are collectively referred to herein as “DENSO” or the “DENSO Defendants.”

The Mitsuba Defendants

19. Defendant Mitsuba Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal place 

of business in Gunma, Japan. Mitsuba Corporation – directly and/or through its subsidiaries, 

which it wholly owned and/or controlled – manufactured, marketed, and/or sold Power Window 

Motors that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this District, during the 

Class Period.

20. Defendant American Mitsuba Corporation is an Illinois corporation with its 

principal place of business in Novi, Michigan. American Mitsuba Corporation, a wholly owned 

subsidiary of Defendant Mitsuba Corporation, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold Power 

Window Motors 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 parent company.

21. Defendants Mitsuba Corporation and American Mitsuba Corporation are 

collectively referred to herein as “Mitsuba” or the “Mitsuba Defendants.”

The Bosch Defendants

22. Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH is a German company with its principal place of 

business in Stuttgart, Germany. Robert Bosch GmbH – directly and/or through its subsidiaries, 

which it wholly owned and/or controlled – manufactured, marketed, and/or sold Power Window 

Motors that were purchased throughout the United States, including in this District, during the 

Class Period.

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 6 of 25 Pg ID 6
7

23. Bosch Electrical Drives Co., Ltd. is a Korean company with its principal place of 

business in Sejong, South Korea. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Robert Bosch 

GmbH. Bosch Electrical Drives Co., Ltd, directly and/or through its affiliates, manufactured, 

marketed, and/or sold Power Window Motors that were purchased throughout the United States, 

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

activities of Bosch Electrical Drives Co., Ltd and its affiliates were under the control and 

direction of Robert Bosch GmbH.

24. Defendant Robert Bosch LLC is a Delaware company with its principal place of 

business in Farmington Hills, Michigan. Robert Bosch LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of 

Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH and affiliate of Defendant Bosch Electrical Drives Co., Ltd., 

operates factories and distribution facilities in several states, including at least Illinois, Michigan, 

Massachusetts, Tennessee, and South Carolina. Robert Bosch LLC, directly and/or through its 

affiliates, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold Power Window Motors that were purchased 

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

during the Class Period, the activities of Robert Bosch LLC and its affiliates were under the 

control and direction of its parent Robert Bosch GmbH and/or its affiliate Bosch Electrical 

Drives Co., Ltd.

25. Defendants Robert Bosch GmbH, Bosch Electrical Drives Co., Ltd., and Robert 

Bosch LLC are collectively referred to herein as “Bosch” or the “Bosch Defendants.”

AGENTS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS

26. Various persons or firms not named as Defendants have participated as coconspirators in the violations alleged herein and have performed acts and made statements in 

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 7 of 25 Pg ID 7
8

furtherance thereof. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the acts of their coconspirators whether named or not named as Defendants in this Complaint.

27. The acts alleged herein that have been performed by Defendants were authorized, 

ordered, and performed by their officers, directors, agents, employees, or representatives while 

engaged in the management, direction, control, or transaction of the Defendants’ business affairs.

28. Each Defendant acted as the agent, principal, or joint venturer of the other 

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

29. The acts alleged herein that have been performed by Defendants DENSO 

International America Inc., DENSO International Korea Corporation, ASMO North America, 

LLC, ASMO North Carolina, Inc., American Mitsuba Corporation, Bosch Electrical Drives Co., 

Ltd., and Robert Bosch LLC were authorized, ordered, and condoned by their respective parent 

companies. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Product Description: Power Window Motors

30. “Power Window Motors” are small electric motors used to raise and lower 

windows in a motor vehicle. 

31. Power Window Motors are installed by automobile original equipment 

manufacturers (“OEMs”) in new cars as part of the automotive manufacturing process. They 

also are installed in automobiles to replace failing, defective, or damaged Power Window 

Motors.

32. Defendants and their co-conspirators supplied Power Window Motors that were: 

1) manufactured in the United States and installed in motor vehicles manufactured in the United 

States or used for replacement parts for motor vehicles in the United States; 2) manufactured 

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 8 of 25 Pg ID 8
9

abroad, exported to the United States, and installed in motor vehicles manufactured and sold in 

the United States; and 3) manufactured abroad and exported into the United States for use as 

replacement parts for motor vehicles in the United States.

B. The Power Window Motors Market

33. The Power Window Motors market has certain characteristics that are conducive 

to a price-fixing conspiracy and that make Defendants’ conspiracy more plausible, namely there 

are high barriers to entry and demand for the product is inelastic.

34. There are substantial barriers to entry in the Power Window Motors market as any 

new entrant would face costly and lengthy start-up costs, including manufacturing plants and

equipment, research and development, transportation, distribution infrastructure, the obtaining of 

skilled labor, and the existence of long-standing relationships between customers and suppliers. 

Furthermore, Defendant Mitsuba owns several patents related to the manufacture of Power 

Window Motors that further inhibit market entry.

35. Demand for Power Window Motors is highly inelastic—i.e., sellers of Power 

Window Motors can increase prices with little or no decline in units sold. This is because there 

are no viable substitutes for these products and Power Window Motors are an essential part of 

modern motor vehicles (even if prices are kept at a supra-competitive level).

C. The Request for Quotation Process 

36. When procuring parts such as Power Window Motors for manufacturing a new 

motor vehicle, an OEM issues a Request for Quotation (“RFQ”). Automotive parts 

manufacturers, such as the Defendants, then submit a bid or quotation to the OEM in response to 

the RFQ. 

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 9 of 25 Pg ID 9
10

37. The RFQ process is designed to obtain competitive, independent bids from 

multiple suppliers. To that end, an OEM will issue the RFQ to multiple competing parts 

suppliers, those suppliers will submit bids, and the OEM will select a winner (usually the lowest 

bid). Sometimes, before selecting the winner, an OEM or the suppliers may revise the technical 

specifications, and revised bids will be submitted.

38. The parts purchased by the OEM in connection with that RFQ are purchased from 

the winning parts manufacturer for the lifespan of the motor vehicle model, which on average is 

between four to six years. During that time frame, whenever an OEM purchases Power Window 

Motors for that motor vehicle model, the OEM purchases the Power Window Motors from the 

parts manufacturer who won the RFQ and was awarded the supply contract, at the price set by 

that supply contract.

39. The prices set by the RFQ process are also used when direct purchasers other than 

the OEM who issued the RFQ purchase Power Window Motors from the Defendants, such as 

those purchasing Power Window Motors to replace parts as they become worn or damaged. 

Every subsequent purchaser who buys Power Window Motors from that Defendant pays at least 

the winning price set by the RFQ or higher.

40. Thus, the RFQ process described above not only sets the prices for Power 

Window Motors incorporated into new motor vehicles manufactured by that particular OEM, it 

also sets the price floor for all other direct purchasers, including those making purchases for use 

as replacement and aftermarket parts.

D. Defendants’ Power Window Motors Conspiracy

41. During the Class Period, Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a single 

conspiracy to raise, fix, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for Power Window Motors by price2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 10 of 25 Pg ID 10
11

fixing, rigging bids for, and allocating the market and customers of Power Window Motors sold 

in or into the United States. 

42. In furtherance of that conspiracy, Defendants participated in meetings, telephone 

conversations, emails, and other communications in order to discuss bids and price quotations for 

Power Window Motors sold in or into the United States, and agreed to rig bids and allocate the 

supply of those Power Window Motors. Defendants then submitted as part of the RFQ process

bids and price quotations to the OEMs in accordance with those conspiratorial agreements.

43. Defendants knew and intended that their conduct would impact not only Power 

Window Motors sold to the OEMs as a result of the rigged bidding processes, but also the Power 

Window Motors sold to all direct purchasers throughout the United States. 

44. This was because the conspiracy permitted the Defendants to fix, raise, maintain, 

and/or stabilize the prices paid by OEMs in order to set a floor for the prices paid by all other 

direct purchasers of Power Window Motors. 

45. As a result of the conspiracy, OEMs and all or nearly all other direct purchasers of 

Power Window Motors paid supra-competitive prices for those products.

E. Government Investigations and Guilty Pleas

46. Government officials in the United States, Europe, Canada, and Japan have been 

involved in a globally coordinated antitrust investigation for several years involving automotive 

parts, including Power Window Motors. The investigation began in Europe after some European 

OEMs lodged a complaint with the European Commission (“EC”). 

47. As a result of this investigation, United States, European, and Japanese authorities 

executed surprise raids in February 2010 at the offices of several automotive parts 

manufacturers, including some of the Defendants. To obtain search warrants for the raids 

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 11 of 25 Pg ID 11
12

conducted in the United States, the government was legally required to demonstrate probable 

cause that it would obtain evidence of an antitrust violation as result of executing the warrant—

i.e., the United States must have presented sufficient evidence to the magistrate to convince him 

or her that a person of reasonable caution would believe that raiding these offices would uncover 

additional evidence of antitrust violations.

48. As of the filing of this Complaint, thirty-five (35) companies and twenty-nine (29) 

executives have pled guilty or agreed to plead guilty as a result of the DOJ’s automotive parts 

investigation, resulting in more than $2.5 billion in criminal fines and dozens of prison 

sentences. 

49. According to the FBI’s Special Agent in Charge Andrew G. Arena, “This criminal 

activity has a significant impact on the automotive manufacturers in the United States, Canada, 

Japan and Europe and has been occurring 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.”

Mitsuba Has Pled Guilty to Price-Fixing Power Window Motors

50. On September 26, 2013, the DOJ announced that Defendant Mitsuba Corporation 

agreed to plead guilty to participating in a conspiracy regarding Power Window Motors and 

other parts from at least as early as January 2000 until at least February 2010. As part of its 

guilty plea, Mitsuba Corporation agreed to pay a $135 million fine.

51. Defendant Mitsuba Corporation pled guilty to two counts: (1) participating in a 

combination or conspiracy to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of automotive parts, including 

Power Window Motors, in violation of the Sherman Act; and (2) altering, destroying, and 

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 12 of 25 Pg ID 12
13

concealing evidence with the intent to impede, obstruct, and influence the government’s 

investigation of its anticompetitive activities.

52. Its plea agreement covered not only itself but its “related entities” or

“subsidiaries,” including Defendant American Mitsuba Corporation. Furthermore, it included a 

promise by the DOJ not to prosecute its “related entities for any act or offense committed before 

the date of signature of this Plea Agreement [...] that was undertaken in furtherance of an 

antitrust conspiracy involving the manufacture or sale of automotive parts[.]” In addition, the

Mitsuba plea agreement required cooperation from its related entities (i.e., its subsidiaries). 

53. According to the Information filed against it, Defendant Mitsuba Corporation and 

its co-conspirators carried out their conspiracy by, among other things:

(a) participating in meetings, conversations, and communications in 

the United States and elsewhere to discuss the bids and price 

quotations to be submitted to automobile manufacturers in the 

United States and elsewhere;

(b) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and 

communications, on bids and price quotations to be submitted to 

automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere;

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

communications, to allocate the supply of automotive parts sold to 

automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere;

(d) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and 

communications, to coordinate price adjustments requested by 

automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere;

(e) submitting bids, price quotations, and price adjustments to 

automobile manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere in 

accordance with the agreements reached;

(f) selling automotive parts to automobile manufacturers in the United 

States and elsewhere at collusive and noncompetitive prices;

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 13 of 25 Pg ID 13
14

(g) accepting payment for automotive parts sold to automobile 

manufacturers in the United State and elsewhere at collusive and 

noncompetitive prices;

(h) engaging in meetings, conversations, and communications in the 

United States and elsewhere for the purpose of monitoring and 

enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon bid-rigging and pricefixing scheme; and

(i) employing measures to keep their conduct secret, including, but 

not limited to, using code names and meeting at remote locations.

54. Mitsuba’s employees took affirmative steps to obstruct the DOJ’s criminal 

investigation into its collusive conduct. According to its plea agreement, in February 2010, some 

of Mitsuba’s employees became aware of a criminal investigation into the automotive parts 

industry when one of its co-conspirator’s located in this District was searched by United States 

law enforcement authorities. Over the next several days, the employees took steps to conceal or 

destroy incriminating evidence. Some of the employees involved in these efforts were Mitsuba’s 

senior executives and board members; some were contemporaneously employed by Defendant 

Mitsuba Corporation and Defendant American Mitsuba Corporation.

DENSO and Bosch Have Pled Guilty to Price-Fixing Other Automotive Parts

55. DENSO and Bosch have pled guilty to participating in combinations or 

conspiracies to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of other automotive parts in violation of the 

Sherman Act.

56. On January 30, 2012, the DOJ announced that Defendant DENSO Corporation 

had agreed to pay a $78 million fine and plead guilty to a two-count criminal Information 

charging it with: (1) participating in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate 

competition in the automotive parts industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and 

maintain the prices of, electronic control units (“ECUs”) sold to an automobile manufacturer in 

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 14 of 25 Pg ID 14
15

the United States and elsewhere from at least as early as January 2000 and until at least February 

2010 in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1; and (2) participating in a 

combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the automotive parts 

industry by agreeing to rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of, heater 

control panels (“HCPs”) sold to an automobile manufacturer in the United States and elsewhere 

from at least as early as January 2000 and continuing until at least February 2010 in violation of 

the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 .

57. Defendant DENSO Corporation’s subsidiary, Defendant DENSO International 

Korea Corporation, was a member of the DENSO family that performed manufacturing and/or 

marketing and sales operations with respect to sales of products to Korean automobile 

manufacturers. For DENSO to effectuate the conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids on, among 

other products, Power Window Motors, Defendant DENSO International Korea Corporation was 

a designated entity for rigging bids in response to RFQs issued by Korean automobile 

manufacturers.

58. On March 31, 2015, the DOJ announced that Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH had 

agreed to pay a $57.8 million fine and plead guilty to a one-count Information charging it with 

conspiring to allocate the supply of, rig bids for, and to fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of, 

(a) spark plugs and oxygen sensors sold from at least as early as January 2000 until at least July 

2011, and (b) starter motors sold from at least January 2009 until at least June 2010.

59. According to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brent Snyder of the Antitrust 

Division’s Criminal Enforcement Program, “The participants in this conspiracy were not located 

in just one country or region of the world.” Snyder further stated, “Collusion related to 

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 15 of 25 Pg ID 15
16

automotive parts was global in nature and our efforts to hold responsible companies and 

individuals accountable for the resulting harm to U.S. consumers and businesses.”

60. According to the criminal Informations filed against them, Defendants DENSO

Corporation and Robert Bosch GmbH (together with their co-conspirators) carried out the

conspiracies by, among other things:

(a) participating in meetings, conversations, and communications in 

the United States and Japan to discuss the bids and price quotations 

to be submitted to certain automobile and internal combustion 

engine manufacturers in the United States and elsewhere;

(b) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and 

communications, on bids and price quotations to be submitted to 

certain automobile and internal combustion engine manufacturers;

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

communications, to allocate the supply of automotive parts sold to 

automobile and internal combustion engine manufacturers in the 

United States and elsewhere, in some cases on a model-by-model 

or an engine-specific basis;

(d) agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and 

communications, to coordinate price adjustments requested by 

certain automobile and internal combustion engine manufacturers

in the United States and elsewhere;

(e) submitting bids, price quotations, and price adjustments to certain

automobile and internal combustion engine manufacturers in the 

United States and elsewhere in accordance with the agreements 

reached;

(f) selling automotive parts to certain automobile and internal 

combustion engine manufacturers in the United States and 

elsewhere at collusive and noncompetitive prices;

(g) accepting payment for automotive parts sold to certain automobile 

and internal combustion engine manufacturers in the United States 

and elsewhere at collusive and non-competitive prices;

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 16 of 25 Pg ID 16
17

(h) engaging in meetings, conversations, and communications for the 

purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon 

bid-rigging and price-fixing scheme; and

(i) employing measures to keep their conduct secret, including but not 

limited to using code names and meeting at private residences or 

remote locations.

ANTITRUST INJURY

61. Defendants’ conspiracy suppressed price competition among Defendants, causing 

prices for Power Window Motors to be artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. 

62. As a result, Plaintiff and the members of the Class paid supra-competitive prices 

for Power Window Motors and were deprived of the benefits of a competitive market throughout 

the Class Period. 

63. Therefore, as a direct and foreseeable result of Defendants’ conspiracy, Plaintiff 

and the members of the Class have been injured in their business or property in that they paid 

more for Power Window Motors than they would have in the absence of Defendants’ unlawful 

and anticompetitive conduct.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

64. Plaintiff brings this action both on behalf of themselves and all others similarly 

situated (the “Class”) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). 

The Class is defined as follows:

All individuals and entities that purchased Power Window Motors in the 

United States directly from one or more Defendants or their coconspirators (or their controlled subsidiaries, affiliates, or joint ventures) 

from January 1, 2000 through the present.

65. Plaintiff does not know the exact number of Class members, such information 

being in the exclusive control of Defendants. Due to the nature of the trade and commerce 

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 17 of 25 Pg ID 17
18

involved, however, Plaintiff believes that the members of the Class are so numerous and 

geographically dispersed throughout the United States that joinder of all Class members is 

impracticable.

66. There are questions of law or fact common to the Class, including, but not limited 

to, the following:

(a) Whether Defendants engaged in a contract, combination, or conspiracy to fix, 

raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Power Window Motors 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 Defendants 

and their co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy;

(d) Whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

(e) Whether the contract, combination, or conspiracy caused Power Window 

Motors prices to be higher than they would have been in the absence of 

Defendants’ conduct;

(f) Whether the conduct of Defendants and their co-conspirators, as alleged in 

this Complaint, caused injury to the business or property of Plaintiff and the 

other Class members; 

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

conspiracy’s existence from the Plaintiff and other Class members;

(h) Whether Plaintiff and other Class members are entitled to injunctive relief 

and, if so, the nature and extent of such relief; and

(i) The appropriate class-wide measure of damages.

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 18 of 25 Pg ID 18
19

67. These and other questions of law and fact are common to the Class and

predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members.

68. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class because Plaintiff directly 

purchased Power Window Motors from one or more of the Defendants and/or their coconspirators, all Class members were damaged by the same conspiracy alleged herein, and the 

relief sought by Plaintiff is common to the Class.

69. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class in that 

Plaintiff is a direct purchaser of Power Window Motors and has no conflict with any other 

members of the Class. Furthermore, Plaintiff has retained competent counsel experienced in 

antitrust, class action, and other complex litigation.

70. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby 

making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole.

71. A class action is superior to the alternatives, if any, for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy. Prosecution of this matter as a class action will eliminate the 

possibility of repetitive litigation and there are no inherent barriers to managing the case as a 

class action.

72. The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members would create the 

risk of inconsistent or varying outcomes.

73. The Class is also readily definable and is one for which records likely exist in the 

files of Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS ARE TIMELY

74. Plaintiff and the members of the Class had no knowledge of the anticompetitive 

conduct alleged herein, or of facts sufficient to place them on notice of the claims set forth 

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 19 of 25 Pg ID 19
20

herein, until, at the earliest, September 26, 2013. On that date, the DOJ publicly announced the

impending guilty pleas of Defendant Mitsuba Corporation with respect to Power Window 

Motors.

75. As a result, Plaintiff and the members of the Class did not discover, nor could 

they have discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence, the existence of the 

conspiracy alleged herein, until September 26, 2013. Prior to that time, there was insufficient 

information to suggest that any of the Defendants was involved in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig 

bids, or allocate the market for Power Window Motors. 

76. Moreover, fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations on the claims 

asserted herein by Plaintiff and the members of the Class until at least September 26, 2013. 

Defendants affirmatively and wrongfully concealed their anticompetitive conduct since the Class 

Period began. 

77. Defendants’ conspiracy, by its very nature, was inherently self-concealing. 

Moreover, because Power Window Motors are not exempt from antitrust regulation, and because 

the price for Power Window Motors was set through an RFQ process that Plaintiff and members 

of the class had reason to believe was competitive, Plaintiff and the members of the Class 

reasonably believed they were making Power Window Motors purchases in a competitive 

industry.

78. In addition, Defendants took affirmative steps to conceal their conspiracy and 

carry it out in a manner that would preclude detection. For example, Defendants have used code 

names and met in remote locations in order to keep their anticompetitive conduct secret.

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 20 of 25 Pg ID 20
21

79. One or more of the Defendants have already pled guilty to purposefully 

destroying evidence to avoid detection. For example, the Plea Agreement for Defendant Mitsuba 

Corporation states:

On or about February 24, 2010, Executive A of [Mitsuba Corporation] 

learned that the offices of a conspirator of [Mitsuba Corporation] located 

in the Eastern District of Michigan had been searched by Federal law 

enforcement authorities in connection with an investigation of possible 

violations of U.S. antitrust law. At all times during the relevant period, 

Executive A was a senior executive of [Mitsuba Corporation] and of its 

subsidiary American Mitsuba Corporation, and was a member of [Mitsuba 

Corporation’s] Board of Directors. Executive A, while physically present 

in the Eastern District of Michigan, in relation to and in contemplation of 

an investigation of the defendant's conduct described in Paragraphs 4(a)-

(d) of this Plea Agreement, and intending to obstruct such investigation, 

directed certain of his subordinates to conceal and destroy documents and 

electronic files relating to the conduct described in Paragraphs 4(a)- (d) 

that were in the possession, custody and control of [Mitsuba Corporation] 

and American Mitsuba Corporation in both the United States and Japan. 

Executive A's subordinates and other employees of the defendant took acts 

in the Eastern District of Michigan and elsewhere to conceal and destroy 

such evidence, and did conceal and destroy such evidence. Within several 

days after the aforementioned search, Executive B of [Mitsuba 

Corporation], a senior executive of [Mitsuba Corporation] and a member 

of [Mitsuba Corporation’s] Board of Directors, and Executive C, a senior 

executive of [Mitsuba Corporation], also became aware of the search and 

directed certain of their subordinates and other employees that documents 

and electronic files in the possession, custody and control of [Mitsuba 

Corporation] in Japan should be concealed and destroyed. Executive B's 

and C's subordinates and other employees took acts to conceal and destroy 

such evidence, and did conceal and destroy such evidence.

80. Because Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct was both self-concealing and 

affirmatively concealed, Plaintiff and the members of the Class did not learn or discover the 

operative facts giving rise to this Complaint prior to September 26, 2013. No information, actual 

or constructive, was ever made available to Plaintiff and the members of the Class that would 

have led a reasonably diligent person to investigate whether a conspiracy existed prior to 

September 26, 2013.

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 21 of 25 Pg ID 21
22

81. For these reasons, the statute of limitations applicable to Plaintiff and the Class’s 

claims did not begin to run or were otherwise tolled until September 26, 2013.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act

(Against All Defendants)

82. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above allegations as if fully set forth 

herein. 

83. During the Class Period, Defendants and their co-conspirators entered into a 

continuing agreement, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade to artificially raise, fix, 

maintain, or stabilize prices for Power Window Motors sold in or into the United States.

84. As horizontal competitors, Defendants’ agreement, combination, or conspiracy 

thus constitutes a per se violation of the federal antitrust laws.

85. In accordance with this agreement, combination, or conspiracy, Defendants and 

their co-conspirators endeavored to and succeeded in rigging bids, allocating the market, and 

fixing prices for Power Window Motors sold in or into the United States during the Class Period.

86. In furtherance of their conspiracy, Defendants and their co-conspirators took at 

least the following affirmative actions:

(a) Participated in meetings, conversations, and communications to discuss the bids and 

price quotations for Power Window Motors to be submitted to direct purchasers in the 

United States; 

(b) Agreed on bids and price quotations for Power Window Motors to be submitted to 

direct purchasers in the United States; 

(c) Submitted bids and price quotations to direct purchasers of Power Window Motors in 

accordance with the agreements reached;

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 22 of 25 Pg ID 22
23

(d) Manipulated prices and allocated supply of Power Window Motors sold in or into the 

United States; 

(e) Coordinated price adjustments for Power Window Motors sold in or into the United 

States; 

(f) Sold Power Window Motors in or into the United States at supra-competitive prices; 

and

(g) Actively concealed the true nature of their unlawful conduct from Plaintiff and the 

members of the Class in furtherance of the conspiracy.

87. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct described above, Plaintiff and the 

members of the Class have been injured in their business and property in that they paid more for 

Power Window Motors during the Class Period than they would have absent the anticompetitive 

conduct of Defendants and their co-conspirators.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment on its behalf and on behalf 

of the Class proposed herein, and respectfully requests the following relief:

A. That the Court determine that this action may proceed as a class action under Rule 

23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with Plaintiff as the designated Class representative

and its counsel as Class Counsel;

B. That the contract, combination or conspiracy, and the acts done in furtherance 

thereof by Defendants and their co-conspirators as alleged in this complaint, be adjudicated and 

decreed a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1;

C. That Plaintiff and members of the Class recover damages sustained by them, as 

provided by the federal antitrust laws, and that a joint and several judgment in favor of Plaintiff 

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 23 of 25 Pg ID 23
24

and the Class be entered against the Defendants in an amount to be trebled in accordance with 

the antitrust laws pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §15(a); 

D. That Defendants, their subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees 

and the respective officers, directors, partners, agents and employees thereof and all other 

persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf be permanently enjoined and restrained from 

continuing and maintaining the combination, conspiracy or agreement alleged herein;

E. That Plaintiff and members of the Class recover their costs of this suit, including 

reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by law; 

F. That Plaintiff and members of the Class be awarded pre-judgment and postjudgment interest in accordance with law; and

G. That Plaintiff and members of the Class receive such other or further relief as may 

be just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all of the claims 

asserted in this Complaint so triable.

Dated: May 20, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

_/s/ Aubrey H. Tobin_________________

Aubrey H. Tobin (P31256)

Attorney at Law, P.C. 

2140 Walnut Lake Road 

West Bloomfield, MI 48323 

Telephone: (248) 932-3070 

Aubrey@tobinpc.com

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 24 of 25 Pg ID 24
25

M. John Dominguez

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS 

& TOLL PLLC

2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Telephone: (561) 515-1431

jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com

David A. Young

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS

& TOLL PLLC

1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500 West

Washington, D.C. 20005

Telephone: (202) 408-4600

dyoung@cohenmilstein.com

Matthew W. Ruan

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS

& TOLL PLLC

88 Pine Street, 14th Floor

New York, NY 10005

Telephone: (212) 838-7797

mruan@cohenmilstein.com

Christopher J. Cormier

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS

& TOLL PLLC

2443 S. University Boulevard, #232

Denver, CO 80210

Telephone: (720) 583-0650

ccormier@cohenmilstein.com

Solomon B. Cera

Thomas C. Bright

Pamela A. Markert

CERA LLP

595 Market Street, Suite 2300

San Francisco, CA 94105-2835

Telephone: (415) 777-2230

scera@cerallp.com

tbright@cerallp.com

pmarkert@cerallp.com

2:15-cv-11829-MOB-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 05/20/15 Pg 25 of 25 Pg ID 25