# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 40 86

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
In re: Pre -Fi ll ed Pro pa ne Tank Ant it ru st Lit ig at io n

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Mar io Orti z; Ste ph en Mo rri so n; Ste ve n Ts effo s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

Sean Vene zi a; Mi ch ael S. Harv ey ; Gre go ry Lud vi gs en ; Art hu r Hul l; Alan Ro ck well ; J am es Halg ers on ; Th om as R. Cla rk ; Br y ce M an de r; Al ex Ch ern av sk y ;

Ro be rt Orr ; Eri c Bl um ; Pa ul Too m ey

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s

W il li am Vin cen t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

Dav id McNal ly; Ste ve n Lu tre ll ; Ken Cram er

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s

Kev in Dou gh ert y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la ntJa m es Ris to w; Dan ie l Kel le he r; R ic ha rd Ped ric k; Dall as May, Jr .; To m Ro be rts

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s

Jo hn Gil be rt; Mark Ste ve ns ; Ri ch ard Para do wsk i

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

Han z De Per io

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff

Jo sh Bart ho lo w

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

Jo se ph M. Haal a; Sco tt Zueh lk e; W es le y H. McCu ll ou gh ; Ri ch ard San ch ez; Mar y Lou Bree d; Jer ry

Mars ha ll

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s
Troy W in te rs ; Th om as Gane ; Gar y Sn ow; Nich ol as Pu ll i; All an Dis br ow

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Ferr el lg as Part ne rs , L.P. a lim it ed pa rtn ers hi p; Ferre ll ga s, L.P. a l im it ed pa rtn ers hi p, d oi ng bu si ne ss as B lu e Rh in o; Am eri Gas Pro pa ne , L.P. a lim it ed pa rtn ers hi p, d oi ng bu si ne ss as Am eri Gas Cy li nd er Ex ch an ge ; UGI Co rp or at io n, a
co rp or at io n; Am eri Gas Pro pa ne , Inc .; Am eri Gas Part ne rs , L.P.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

-2

-__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 41 64

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Ro be rt Orr ; Eri c Bl um ; Pa ul Too m ey ; Will ia m Vin cen t; Davi d M cNal ly; Ste ve n Lut rel l; Ken C ram er; Kevi n Do ug he rty; Ja m es Ris to w; Dan ie l Kel le he r; R ic ha rd Ped ric k; Dall as May, Jr .; To m Ro be rts ; J oh n Gi lb ert ; M ark Ste ve ns ; Ri ch ard Para do wsk i; Hanz De Peri o; Jo sh Bart ho lo w; J os ep h M . Haala ; Sc ot t Zu ch lk e; W es le y H. McCu ll ou gh ; Ri ch ard San ch ez; MaryLou Bree d; Jer ry Mars ha ll

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Ferr el lg as Part ne rs , L.P.; Ferr el lg as , L.P.; Am eri Gas Part ne rs , L.P.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 15 , 20 18 Fi le d: Ju ne 22 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, BENTO N, and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

The pl ai nt i f

f s su ed Ferr el lg as Part ne rs , L.P., Ferr el lg as , L.P. (co ll ect iv el y

“ Ferr el lg as ”), an d Am eri Gas Part ne rs , L.P., al le gi ng an ti tru st vi ol at io ns an d se ek in g rel ie f un de r fed eral an d st at e la w. The di st ric t co ur t gran te d su m m ary jud gm en t for

-3

-Defen da nt s. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91
, th is co ur t affi rm s in pa rt

an d re m an ds in pa rt.

I.

F e r r el lg as an d Am eri Gas are th e na ti on ’s la rg es t di st rib ut or s of pr e-fi ll ed

1

pr op an e ex c h an ge ta nk s, whi ch co m e in a st an da rd si ze. Befo re 20 08
, Defen da nt s fil le d th e ta nk s wit h 17 po un ds of pr op an e. In 20 08
, du e to ris in g pr o p a n e pr ic es , Defen da nt s red uc ed th e am ou nt in each ta nk fro m 17 to 15 po un ds , b ut m ai nt ai ne d th e sa m e pr ic e. Acco rd in g to th e pl ai nt iff s, th is “ effe ct iv el y rai s[ ed ] th e pr ic e ch arg ed fo r pr op an e in th os e ta nk s.”

In 20 09
, a gr ou p of pl ai nt iff s— in di rect pu rch as ers who bo ug ht ta nk s fro m
ret ai le rs —fi le d a cl as s act io n al le gi ng Defen da nt s co ns pi red to red uc e th e am ou nt of

pr op an e in th e ta nk s whi le m ai nt ai ni ng th e pr ic e, in vi ol at io n of S e c t i o n 1 of th e Sh erm an Act an d st at e an ti tru st an d co ns um er pr ot ect io n la ws. In 20 10
, th e pl ai nt iff s

an d Am eri Gas se tt le d. Se e In re Pre- Fi ll ed Pro pa ne Tank Mk tg

. & Sa le s Pra ct

ic es Lit ig

. , 20 10 W L 20 08 83 7 (W. D. Mo

. May 19
, 20 10 ) (g ran ti ng pr el im in ary ap pr ov al of fir st am en d e d s e t t le m en t ag reem en t). Als o in 20 10
, th os e pl ai nt iff s ag ai n su ed
Ferr el lg as , se tt li ng in 20 12

. (Thi s co ur t refe rs to th os e su it s co ll ect iv el y as “ Pro pa ne I .”) On M arch 27
, 20 14
, th e Fed eral Trad e Co m m is si on is su ed a co m

pl ai nt ag ai ns t Defen da nt s— se tt le d on Ja nu ary 7, 20 15
, by co ns en t or de r s

— f o r co ns pi rin g to
art ifi ci al ly in fla te ta nk pr ic es

. Se e In re Fer re ll ga s Part ner s, L. P., et al

. , 20 14 W L
13 96 49 6 (M ar. 2 7, 2 01 4)

.

On May 30
, 20 14
, an ot he r gr ou p of in di rect pu rch as ers (“ th e Ort iz pl ai nt iff s” ) br ou gh t a cl as s act io n ag ai ns t Defen da nt s, al le gi ng : “ Des p it e th ei r se tt le m en ts , Defen da nt s co nt in ue d to co ns pi re, an d rat he r th an res um in g co m pe ti ti on , m ai nt ai ne d th ei r il le ga ll y ag reed -u po n fil l le ve ls , p res erv in g th e un la wfu ll y in fla te d pr ic es th at

Ferre ll ga s d oe s b us in es s as “ Bl ue Rh in o.” 1

-4

-th ei r co ns pi racy ha d pr od uc ed
, ” a n d “ Defen da nt s co nt in ue d to ha ve reg ul ar

co m m un ic at io ns reg ard in g pr ic in g, fil l le ve ls
, an d m ark et al lo cat io n un ti l at le as t la te 20 10 .” The y se ek in

jun ct iv e rel ie f an d di sg o r g e men t fo r vi ol at io ns of Sect io n 1 of th e Sh erm an Act. Th ey

als o s eek da m ag es un de r th e an ti tru st laws of 2 3 s ta te s and th e Dis tri ct of Co lu m

bi a—a ll wit h st at ut es al lo win g indir ect -p ur ch as er su it s fo r st at ean ti tru st da m ag es de sp it e Ill in oi s Br i c k C o. v. Ill in oi s , 43 1 U.S. 72 0 (1 97 7)
, whi ch ba rs th os e su it s fo r fed eral -an ti tru st da m ag es

.

The Ort iz cl as s act io n be cam e pa rt of a m ul ti di st ric t pr oc eed in g th at in cl ud ed

a cl as s act io n wit h si m il ar al le ga ti on s by di rect pu rch as ers (wh o bo ug ht ta nk s di rect ly fro m Defen da nt s fo r res al e). The di rect -p ur ch as er su it se ek s f e d e r al -an ti tru st da m ag es , whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d as ti m e-b arre d. The di st ric t co ur t

ex pl ai ne d (1 ) t h e s ta tu te of li m it at io ns accr ue d on Aug us t 1, 20 08
, th e la te st “ al l Defen da nt s be ga n se ll in g fif te en po un d ta nk s” ; an d (2 ) ne w pu rch as es of ta nk s aft er th at da te di d no t res ta rt th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns

. In re Pre

- F il le d Pro pa ne Tank
Ant it ru st Lit ig

. , 20 15 W L 12 79 17 56
, at *3 (W. D. Mo

. Ju ly 2, 20 15 ). Thi s co ur t— en ba nc —re ve rs ed
, ho ld in g th at “ ‘each s a l e to th e pl ai nt iff [s ]’ in a pr ic e-fi xi ng

co ns pi racy ‘star ts th e st at ut or y pe rio d ru nn in g ag ai n’” an d is an “ ov ert act , in fli ct in g

ne w an d accu m

ul at in g in jury.” In re Pre- Fi ll

ed Pro pa ne Tank Ant

it ru st Lit ig

. , 86 0
F.3 d 10 59
, 10 67 -6 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (en ba nc ) (“ Pro pa ne En Ba nc ”), cer t. de ni ed
, 13 8
S. Ct . 64 7 (2 01 8)
, qu ot in g Kl ehr v. A.O. Sm it

h Co rp . , 52 1 U.S. 1 79 , 18 9 (1 99 7)

.

Bef o r e t h is co ur t is su ed Pro pa ne En Ban c , th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e se ve ral

ru li ng s in Ort iz

. It di smi s s e d as ti m e-b arre d th e in di rect pu rch as ers ’

st at e-l aw-d am ag es c l a i ms

. The di st ric t co ur t ru le d th at , li ke di rect pu rch as es , ne w in di rect pu rch as es di d no t res ta rt th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns

. Fo r th e sa m e reas on , th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e in di rect pu rch as ers ’ fed eral -d is go rg em en t cl ai m . But it al lo wed th e fed eral -in

jun ct iv e cl ai m

to pro ceed

.

To a d d r e s s th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns , th e Ort iz pl ai nt iff s m ov ed fo r le av e to

am en d to ad d th r e e ne w su bc la ss es as se rti ng da m ag es : (1 ) a si x- y ear st at ut e-o f-

-5

-li m it at io ns su bc la ss , fo r vi ol at io ns of Mai ne , Verm on t, an d W is co ns in la w; (2 ) a ne wpu rch as er su bc la ss , fo r vi ol at io ns of Ka ns as an ti tru st la w; an d (3 ) a ne w-p ur ch as er

su bc la ss , fo r vi ol at io ns of th e la ws of “ Ill in oi s Bri ck r e p e a l e r s ta te s.” The

ne w-p ur ch as er su bc la ss es in cl ude d ind ivi duals who bo ug ht pr op an e ta nk s fo r th e fir st ti m e aft er Mar ch 27
, 20 11

. The Ort iz pl ai nt iff s al so pr op os ed a n o t h e r fed eral

di sg or ge m en t cl ai m

.

The di st ric t co ur t ru le d th at th e am en dm en ts to ad d th e di sg or ge m en t cl ai m an d th e n ew-p ur ch as er su bc la ss es wou ld be fu ti le be cau se th e cl ai m s are ti m e-b arre d.
Acco rd in g to th e di st ric t co ur t, fir st -ti m e pu rch a s e s a f t e r Mar ch 27
, 20 11
, are irr el ev an t be cau se th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns accr ue d in Aug us t 2 0 0 8, an d— as it

p r e v io us ly co nc lu de d— ne w pu rch as es di d no t res ta rt th e cl oc k. The di st ric t co ur t di d, ho wev er, ru le th at th e si x- y ear st at ut e-o f-l imi t a t i o ns su bc la ss rai se d ti m el y cl ai m s. Fi le d on Octo be r 16
, 20 15
, th e Ort iz am en de d co m pl ai nt ret ai ns th e fed eral

in jun ct iv e cl ai m , in ad di ti on to as se rti ng th e si x- y ear st at ut e-o f-l im it at io ns su bc la ss ’s

st at e-l aw-d am ag es cla im

.

The di st ric t co ur t la te r d i s miss ed th e fed eral -in jun ct iv e cl ai m un de r Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 12 (c), co nc lu di ng (1 ) th e i n d i r e c t p ur ch as ers la ck st an di ng , an d (2 ) th e d oc tri ne of la ch es ba rs th e cl ai m

. Mea nwh il e, on Ju ly 21
, 20 16
, an ot he r g r o u p o f in di rect pu rch as ers (“ th e Orr pl ai nt iff s” ) no t na m ed in t h e Ort iz co m pl ai nt su ed Defen da nt s. The Orr co m pl ai nt —cons oli da te d int o the sa m e m ul ti di st ric t pr oc eed in g wit h Ort iz

—i nc lu de s th e fed eral -d is go rg em en t cl ai m an d th e ne w- p ur ch as er

su bc la ss es th at th e Ort iz pl ai nt iff s tri ed to a dd to th ei r co m pl ai nt , al on g wit h a si x- y ear st at ut e-o f-l im it at io ns su bc la ss da m ag es cl ai m an d a fe deral -in jun ct iv e cl ai m

.

Ferr el lg as m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t t he Ort iz pl ai nt iff s, arg ui ng th e Pro pa ne I rel eas e ba rred th e cl ai m s of th e si x- y ear st at ut e-o f-l im it at io ns su bc la ss

. The rel eas e sa y s:

-6

-[T]he Rel eas in g Pers on s he reb y fu ll y , fin al ly, an d fo rev er r e le as e,

rel in qu is h, an d di sc ha rg e th e Rel eas ed Pers on s fro m an y an d a l l li ab il it ie s, cl ai m s, rig ht s, su it s, an d cau se s o f act io n, of an y ki nd wha ts oe ve r, th at th e Rel eas in g Pers on s m ay ha ve or m ay ha ve ha d

. . . whe th er kn own or un kn own , su sp ect ed or un su sp ect ed
, th reat en ed
, as se rt e d
, or un as se rte d

. . . th at were or co ul d ha ve be en so ug ht or al le ge d in th e Lit ig at io n rel at ed to th e fil li ng , pu rch as e, sa le or ex ch an ge of Ferre ll ga s’s 2 0- po un d p ro pa ne ga s cylin de rs

.

The di st ric t co ur t ru le d th at th e rel eas e “ do es no t co nt ai n th e cl ear la ng ua ge ne ces sa ry
to co ns ti tu te a rel eas e of fu tu re cl ai m s. Thu s, th e rel eas e pr ov is io n on ly ba rs as se rti on of cl ai m s th at ha d accr ue d at th e ti m e of th e rel eas e.” In re Pre- Fi ll ed Pro pa ne Tank
Ant it ru st Lit ig

. , 20 16 W L 69 63 05 8, at *4 (W. D. Mo

. Sep t. 2, 20 16 ) (in te rn al ci ta ti on

om it te d)

. The pl ai nt iff

s arg ue d th at “ th ei r cu rren t clai m s are for pos t In re Pro pa ne I pu rch as es of pr op an e ta nk s, an d th at th o s e p u r c ha se s co ul d no t ha ve accr ue d in to cl ai m s u nt il aft er t he pu rch as es were m ad e, an d t hu s, af te r th e rel eas e.” Id

.

The di st ric t di sa gr eed
, gr an ti ng Ferr el lg as sum m ar y j udgm en t, ag ai n ruli ng th at th e cl ai m s accr ue d on ly on ce— “ in Aug us t 20 08 ”—a nd th e li m it at io ns pe rio d di d no t

res ta rt up on ne w pu rch as es

. The di st ric t co ur t a l s o gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t fo r Am eri Gas on th e ba si s of st an di ng

. Fi na ll y , th e di st ric t c o u rt di sm is se d th e Orr

co m pl ai nt ba se d o n i ts rul in gs in Ort iz

.

The in di rect pu rch as ers in Ort iz an d Orr ap pe al

. Thi s co ur t rev ie ws th e is su es he re de no vo

. Pro

pa ne En Ba nc , 86 0 F.3 d at 10 63 ; Mo nt in v. Mo or e , 84 6 F.3 d 28 9,
29 3 (8t h Cir. 20 17 ); Tor

ge rs on v. Ci ty of

Ro ches te r , 64 3 F .3d 10 31 , 10 42 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ).

II.

All eg in g a Sh erm an Act vi ol at io n, th e in di rect pu rch as ers se ek inj un ct iv e rel ie f

req ui rin g Defen da nt s to : (1 ) no t al lo cat e m ark et sh are; (2 ) vo id an y ex is ti ng

-7

-co -p ack in g ag reem en ts , no t m ak e ne w co -p ack in g ag reem en ts , an d no t sh are pr ic in g

in fo rm at io n or in fo rm at io n ab ou t ta nk -fi ll le ve ls ; an d (3 ) in crea se th e fil l le ve ls of th e
ta nk s to 17 po un ds of pr op an e. The di st ric t co ur t ru le d t ha t t he in di rect pu rch as ers la ck st an di ng to see k i nju nc ti ve rel ie f.

“ [A]n act ua l co nt ro ve rs y

m us t b e ex ta nt at a ll st ag es of r ev ie w, no t m erel y at th e ti m e th e co m

pl ai nt is fil ed .” Prei

se r v. Newk ir k
, 42 2 U.S. 39 5, 40 1 (1 97 5) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . To ha ve st an di ng to see k i nju nc ti ve rel ie f,

a pl ai nt iff m

us t sh ow th at he is un de r th reat of su ffer in g “ in jury in fact ” th at is c o n cret e an d pa rti cu la riz ed ; th e th reat m us t be act ua l an d im m in en t, no t co njec tu ral or hypo th et ic al ; it m us t be fai rly tra ceab le to th e ch al le ng ed act io n of th e de fen da nt ; an d it m u s t b e l i ke ly th at a fav or ab le jud ic ia l d eci si on wil l p rev en t o r red res s t he in jury.

Sum m er s v. Ea rt h Is la nd In st

. , 55 5 U.S. 48 8, 49 3 (2 00 9)

. “ Pas t ex po su re to il le ga l

c o nd uc t do es no t in it se lf sh ow a pr es en t cas e or co nt ro ve rs y reg ard in g in ju n c t i v e rel ie f

. . . if un acco m

pa ni ed by an y co nt in ui ng , pr es en t ad ve rs e effe ct s, ” O ’ S h e a v. Li tt le to n , 41 4 U.S. 48 8, 49 5

- 9 6 (1 97 4)
, or by “ a su ffi ci en t li ke li ho od th at [th e pl ai nt iff ] wil l ag ai n be wro ng ed in a si m il ar way ,” Ci ty of Lo s Ang el es v. Lyo ns , 46 1
U.S. 95 , 11 1 (1 98 3)

.

On th e fir st st an di ng el em en t, th e in di rect pu rch as ers arg ue th at th e “ co nt in ue d

sa le of th e pr op an e ta nk s fil le d to on ly fif te en po un ds wit ho ut a co rres po nd in g de crea se in pr ic e co ns ti tu te s an on go in g in jury in fact .” In re Pre- Fi l l e d Pr op an e Tank Ant it ru st Lit ig

. , 20 16 W L 69 63 05 9, at *3 (W. D. Mo

. Ja n. 13
, 2 0 1 6)

. The di st ric t co u r t a g reed : “ Paying a su pr a-co m pe ti ti ve pr ic e as a res ul t of pa st

an ti -co m pe ti ti ve be ha vi or is a co nt in ui ng effe ct , su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h an in jury in fact .” Id

. Bu t it co nc lu de d th at “ al l th ree of Pl ai nt iff s’ req ue st ed in

jun ct io ns fai l fo r la ck of r ed res sa bi li ty.” Id

. at *5

.

-8

-Sp eci fic al ly, th e di st ric t co ur t no te d th at th e Ja nu ary 20 15 FTC co ns en t or de rs

pr ov id e th e sa m e rel ie f as so ug ht in th e fir st two in jun ct io n gr ou nd s. Se e Fa ib is ch

v. Univ er si ty of Mi nnes ot a , 30 4 F.3 d 79 7, 80 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (“ W he n de ci di ng Ru le
12 (c) m ot io ns

. . . c ou rts m ay rel y o n mat te rs wit hi n th e pu bl ic reco rd .”); Br ow n v. Med tr on ic , In c. , 62 8 F.3 d 45 1, 45 9- 60 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 0 ) ( “d oc um en ts at ta ch ed to or in co rp or at ed wit hi n a co m pl ai nt are co ns id ered pa rt of th e pl ead in gs , an d co ur ts m ay lo ok at su ch do cu m en ts ‘for al l pu rp os es ,’ Fed .R.Ci v.P

. 10 (c), in cl ud in g to de te rm in e whe th er a pl ai nt iff ha s st at ed a pl au si bl e cl ai m”)

. A p la in ti ff “ is no t en ti tl ed to in jun ct iv e rel ie f to th e ex te nt ot he r ex is t i n g r e l ie f is ad eq ua te ” an d pr ov id es

“ su bs ta nt ia ll y th e sa m e rel ie f.” Nat io na l Fa rm er

s’ Org ., In c. v. As so c i a t

e d Mi lk
Pro du cer s, In c. , 85 0 F.2 d 12 86
, 1 3 0 9 ( 8 th Ci r. 19 88 ). On ap pe al
, th e in di rect
pu rch as ers arg ue th at th e in jun ct io n gr ou nd s “ ex ceed [] th e sc op e of th at pr ov id ed fo r in th e FTC Co ns en t Ord ers .”

On th e fir st gr ou nd —a ba n on al lo cat in g m ark et sh a r e

— th e di st ric t co ur t fo cu se d on ho w th e FTC or de rs ba r Defen da nt s fro m rai si ng , fix in g, m ai nt ai ni ng , or
st ab il iz in g p ric es of t he tan ks th ro ug h a ny m ean s. Th e FTC o rd ers say:

[Defe n da nt s are pr oh ib it ed fro m ] [e]nt eri ng in to , at te m pt in g to en te r in to , ad he rin g to , pa rti c i p a t i n g i n , mai n ta in in g, or ga ni zi ng , im pl em en ti ng , en fo rci ng , in vi ti ng , of fe r i n g or so li ci ti ng an y
co m bi na ti on , co ns p i r a cy , ag reem en t, or un de rs ta nd in g be twee n or

a mo n g [Defe nd an ts ] an d an y Co m pe ti to r to rai se , fix
, m ai nt ai n, o r st ab il iz e pr ic es or pr ic e le ve ls o f P r op an e Tan ks th ro ug h an y m ean s, in cl ud in g m od ifyin g th e Fi ll Lev el co nt ai ne d in Pro pa ne Tan ks so ld by [Defe nd an ts ] an d/ or it s C om pe ti to rs , or coo rd in at in g Com m un ic at io ns to cu st om ers of [ Defen da nt s] and /o r th ei r Co m pe ti to rs

.

The in di rect pu rch as ers arg ue : “ Eve n if co m pe ti to rs are en

joi ne d fro m ag reei ng to fix pri ces an d st op do in g so , th ey m ay st il l agre e to al lo cat e m ark et s, an d d ue to th e

res ul ti ng la ck of co m

pe ti ti on , ha ve th e ab il i t y to ch arg e su pr a-co m pe ti ti ve pr ic es in de pe nd en t o f a co nt in ui ng ag reem en t t o d o s o.”

-9

-The in di rect pu rch as ers , ho wev er, ig no re th e “ th ro ug h an y m ean s” la ng ua ge

in th e FTC or de rs

. In th e am en de d co m pl ai nt , th ey al le ge th at m ark et -s ha re al lo cat io n is a m ean s of fix in g pr ic es : “ Am eri Gas an d Bl ue Rh in o al so ag reed to al l o c a te

cu st om ers an d m ark et s be twee n th e ms e l v e s in fu rth eran ce of th ei r co ll us io n to

m ai nt ai n pr ic es at su pr aco m pe ti ti ve le ve ls .” As th e di st ric t co ur t no te d, “ Pl ai nt iff s do no t al le ge th e ex is te nc e of a m ark et sh are al lo cat io n ag reem en t di vo rced fro m an y al le ga ti on s of pr ic e fix in g.” Pre- Fi ll ed Pro pa ne , 20 16 W L 69 63 05 9, at *5

. Und er th e in di rect pu rch as ers ’ own th eo ry , m ark et -s ha re al lo cat io n vi ol at es th e FTC or de rs ’ b a n o n f ix in g pr ic es

. The fir st in

jun ct io n gr ou nd do es no t ex ceed th e sc op e of th e FTC o rd ers

.

On th e se co nd gr ou nd
, th e in di rect pu rc h a s e r s w an t Defen da nt s to vo id an y

ex is ti ng co -p ack in g ag reem en ts , refr ai n fro m m ak in g ne w co -p ack in g a g r e e men ts ,
an d refr ai n fro m sh ari ng pr ic in g in fo rm at io n or in fo rm at io n ab ou t ta nk fil l le ve ls

. In th e am en de d c om

pl ai nt , th ey al le ge th at th e co -p ack in g a gr eem en ts “ faci li ta te [] the

ex ch an ge of pr ic in g in fo rm at io n be t w e e n two di rect co m pe ti to rs ” an d “ pr es en t[]

am pl e op po rtu ni ti es fo r co ns pi rat or ia l co m m un ic at io ns .” Bu t th e FTC or de rs co ve r th os e is su es by pr oh ib it in g Defen da nt s fro m ex ch an gi ng “ Co m pe ti ti ve ly Sen si ti ve Non -Pu bl ic In fo rm at io n.” Tha t in cl ud es “ pr ic in g , p r i c in g st rat eg ie s, Fi ll Lev el

st rat eg ie s, co st s, rev en ue s, m arg in s, ou tp ut , bu si ne ss an d st rat eg ic pl an s, m ark et in g,

cu st om er inf

or m at io n an d Co m

m un ic at io ns wit h cu st om ers , ad ve rti si ng , pr om ot io n

or res earc h a nd de ve lo pm en t.”

The in di rect pu rch as ers co un te r, as se rti ng th at b o t h th e fir st an d se co nd in jun ct io n gr ou nd s are ne ces sa ry b e c a us e “ th ere ex is ts so m e co gn iz ab le da ng er of

recu rren t vi ol at io n.” Unit ed St at es v. Bo rd en Co

. , 34 7 U.S. 51 4, 52 0 (1 95 4) (ci ta ti on

om it te d ) (d is cu ss in g si m ul ta ne ou s us e of pu bl ic an d pr iv at e an ti tru st in jun ct io ns ). The y co nt en d th at th e “ FTC Co ns en t Ord ers are rel at iv el y weak

. In e s s e n c e , th ey

mer el y req ui re Defen da nt s to pr om is e no t to br eak th e la w ag ai n.” Acco rd in g t o th em , “ [d ]isco ve ry co ul d es ta bl is h, fo r ex am pl e, th at Defen da nt s ha ve be en vi ol at in g

-1 0-th e te rm s of th e FTC Co ns en t Ord ers an d th e FTC eith er is un aware or ha s no t be en

ad eq ua te ly en fo rci ng th e te rm s of th e Ord ers —a pr ob le m w hic h Pl ai nt iff s wou ld ha ve

no st an di ng to ad dr es s ab se nt an in de pe nd en t s ui t.”

In ot he r wor ds
, th e in di rect pu rch as ers be li ev e th at Defen da nt s are en ga gi ng in “re cu rren t vi ol at io ns ” of th e FTC or de rs

. The y fo cu s on ho w th e di st ric t co ur t

ex pl ai ne d:

“ Pas t exp os ur e to il le ga l con du ct do es no t in it se lf sh ow a pr es en t cas e
or co nt ro ve rs y reg ard in g in jun ct iv e rel ie f.” O’S

he a v. Li tt le t o n , 4 14 U.S. 48 8, 49 5 (1 97 4)

. Thu s, Defen da nt s’ al le ge dl y an ti -c o m pe ti ti ve act io ns in 20 08 are al on e in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h a pr es en t in jury in fact
, en ti tl in g Pl ai nt iff

s to in jun ct iv e rel ie f. Howev er, su ch pa st ex po su re is

su ffi ci en t if it is acco m

pa ni ed by “ co nt in ui ng , pr es en t ad ve rs e effe ct s.” Id

. at 49 6. Paying a su pr a-co m pe ti ti ve pr ic e a s a res ul t of pa st

an ti -co m pe ti ti ve be ha vi or is a co nt in ui ng effe ct , su ffi ci en t t o es ta bl is h

an in jury in fa ct

.

. . . . [T]he al le ga ti on th at Defen da nt s co ll ud ed to rai se pr ic es an d th e al le ga ti on th at th e pr ic es ha ve rem ai ne d in fla te d are no t le ga l co nc lu si on bu t fact ua l as se rti on s. A c co rd in gl y , th is Co ur t ap pr op ria te ly acce pt s th em as tru e an d fin ds th at Pl ai nt iff s h av e al le ge d a su ffi ci en t i nju ry in fact

.

Pre– Fi ll ed Pro pa ne Tank Ant

it ru st Lit ig

. , 20 16 W L 69 63 05 9, at *3 -4

. The in di rect
pu rch as ers arg ue th at th e d i s t ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on m ean s th at Defen da nt s are

recu rren tl y

vi ol at in g t he FTC o rd ers , nec es si ta ti ng pri va te in jun ct iv e rel ie f.

True
, “ th e la w is cl ear th at pu bl ic an d pr iv at e an ti tru st in jun ct io ns m ay co ex is t wit ho ut reg ard fo r on e an ot he r.” Ho wa rd Hes s Dent al Lab s. In c. v. Dent

sp ly In t’l , In c. , 60 2 F .3d 23 7, 2 49 (3 d Ci r. 20 10 ), ci ti ng Bo rd en , 3 47 U.S. a t 51 8 (in an ti tru st

cas es , pu bl ic an d pr iv at e cl ai m s fo r in jun ct iv e rel ie f are “ de si gn ed to be cu m ul at iv e,

-1 1-n o t mu t ua ll y ex cl us iv e”). “ [T]he m ere ex is te nc e of [a go ve rn m en t co ns en t or d e r ]

do es no t pr ecl ud e pr iv at e in jun ct iv e rel ie f.

. . . Howev er, th e pa rty se e k i n g t h e in jun ct io n no ne th el es s ha s th e bu rd en of es ta bl is hi ng th at su ch cu m ul at iv e rel ie f is

ne ed ed ” th ro ug h th e “ co gn iz ab le da ng er of recu rren t vi ol at io n” st an da rd fro m Bor de n

. In re Nife di

pi ne Ant it ru st Lit ig

. , 33 5 F. Su pp

. 2d 6, 17 (D.D.C. 20 04 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)
, ci ti ng Bo rd en , 34 7 U.S. at 51 8; se e al so Ho wa rd
Hes s , 60 2 F.3 d at 24 9 (“ no th in g in Bor de n in ti m at es th at a pr iv at e li ti ga nt is rel ie ve d of it s ev id en ti ary bu rd en of sh owi ng an en ti tl em en t t o i n ju nc ti ve rel ie f whe n th e
go ve rn m en t h as alr ead y

ob ta in ed it s o wn i nju nc ti on .”).

The in di rect pu rch as ers , ho wev er, m us t ad eq ua te ly pl ead th at Defen da nt s are,
po st -J an ua ry 20 15
, co ns pi rin g to ch arg e su pr a-co m pe ti ti ve pr ic es , res ul ti ng in “ so m e

co gn iz ab le da ng er of recu rren t vi ol at io n” of th e FTC or de rs

. A co m pl ai nt m us t al le ge

“ su ffi ci en t fact ua l m at te r, acce pt ed as tru e, to ‘stat e a cl ai m to rel ie f th at is pl au si bl e

on it s face .’ ” As hcr of

t v. Iq ba l
, 55 6 U.S. 66 2, 67 8 (2 00 9)
, qu ot in g Be ll At la nt ic
Co rp . v. Two m bl

y , 55 0 U.S. 54 4, 57 0 (2 00 7)

. A pl au si bl e cl ai m m us t pl ead “ fact ua l

co nt en t th at al lo ws th e co ur t to dr aw th e reas on ab le in fere nc e th at th e de fen d a n t is
li ab le fo r th e m is co nd uc t al le ge d.” Id

. , qu ot in g Two m bl

y , 55 0 U

. S

. a t 5 5 6

. “ The pl au si bi li ty s ta nd ard

. . . a s k s fo r m or e th an a sh eer po ss ib il it y th at a de fen da nt ha s
act ed un la wfu ll y .” Id

. , ci ti ng Two m bl

y , 55 0 U.S. at 55 6. “ A pl ead in g th at of fers ‘lab el s an d co nc lu si on s’ or ‘a fo rm ul ai c reci ta ti on of th e el em en ts of a cau se of act io n wil l no t do .’ Nor do es a co m pl ai nt su ffi ce if it te nd ers ‘nak ed as se rti on [s ]’ de vo id of ‘furt he r fact ua l en ha nc em en t.’” Id

. , qu ot in g Two m bl

y , 55 0 U.S. at 55 5, 55 7 (ci ta ti on

om it te d)

. Rat he r, th e fact s al le ge d “ m us t be en ou gh to rai se a rig ht to rel ie f ab ov e th e
sp ecu la ti ve le ve l.” Two m bl y , 55 0 U

. S

. a t 5 5 5

. “ As a ge ne ral ru le
, a Ru le 12 (c)

m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o n t h e pl ead in gs is rev ie wed un de r th e sa m e st an da rd as a 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io n to di sm is s.” Gins bu rg v. I nBev NV /S A
, 62 3 F.3 d 12 29
, 12 33 n.3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ); se e al

so Ca fa ss o v. Gener al Dyna m ic s C4 Sys

. , 63 7 F.3 d 10 47
, 10 54
n.4 (9 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (co ll e c ti ng cas es fro m th e Seco nd
, Fi fth
, an d Si xt h Ci rcu it s to

co nc lu de th at th e Two mbl y an d Iq ba l st an da rd ap pl ie s t o R ul e 1 2( c) m ot io ns .).

-1 2-In Pro pa ne En Ban c , th is co ur t co ns id ered whe th er th e di rect pu rch as ers

su ffi ci en tl y al le ge d “ un la wfu ll y hi gh pri ced sal es du rin g t he cla ss pe rio d” res ul ti ng fro m a pr ic e-fi xi ng co ns pi racy, an el em en t in de te rm in in g “ whe th er th e a men d ed

co m pl ai nt ad eq ua te ly pl ead s a co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n su ffi ci en t to res ta rt th e st at ut e of
li m it at io ns .” Pro

pa ne En Ba nc , 86 0 F.3 d at 10 68 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. The di rect pu rch as ers pl ed (1 ) “ Defen da nt s’ a nt ic om pe ti ti ve co nd uc t l a st ed at le as t fro m Ju ly 21
, 20 08 th ro ug h J a n u a r y 9, 20 15 ,” an d (2 ) “ Defen da nt s’ un la wfu l

co m m un ic at io ns reg ard in g pr ic in g, fil l le ve ls
, an d m ark et al lo cat io n co nt in ue d un ti l

at le as t la te 20 10 .” Id

. at 10 69 -7 0. Thi s co ur t co nc lu de d th at th os e al le ga ti on s were

“ na ke d as se rti on [s ] de vo id of fu rth er fa c t u al en ha nc em en t,” Iq ba l
, 55 6 U.S. at 67 8 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)
, th at do no t “ rai se a rig ht to rel ie f ab ov e th e
sp ecu la ti ve le ve l,” Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S. at 55 5. Pro

pa ne En Ba nc , 86 0 F.3 d at 10 70

. Oth er al le ga ti on s, ho wev er, su ffi ci en tl y “ li st [ed ] rel ev an t in d i v id ua ls
, act s, an d

co nv ers at io ns ” in 20 08 an d 20 10 to pl ead “ th at th e co ns pi racy co nt in ue d in to t he cl as s p eri od .” Id

. at 1 06 9- 70

.

The in di rect pu rch as ers e mp h a si ze ho w th ey pl ead : (1 ) “ Defen da nt s’

co ns pi racy is a co nt in ui ng co ns pi racy. Bo th de fen da nt s ha ve co nt in ue d to m ai nt ai n the re du ced fil l le ve ls de sp it e th e fact th at pr op an e pr ic es ha ve de crea se d su bs ta nt ia ll y fro m th ei r 20 08 hi gh ”; (2 ) “ Des pi te th ei r se tt le m en ts [in Pro pa n e I ], D efen da nt s

co nt in ue d to co ns pi r e, an d rat he r th an res um in g co m pe ti ti on , m ai nt ai ne d th ei r il le ga l ly ag reed -u po n fil l le ve ls , p res erv in g th e un la wfu ll y in fla te d pr ic es th at th ei r

c o ns pi racy ha d pr od uc ed ”; (3 ) “ The co nd uc t of Defen da nt s is co nt in ui ng an d wil l

co nt in ue to imp o s e a n t i tru st in jury on cl as s m em

be rs un le ss eq ui ta bl e rel ie f is

gr an te d” ; an d (4 ) “ Pri ces fo r pr op an e ex ch an ge ta nk s so ld by Defen da nt s ha ve be en fix ed
, rai se d, m ai nt ai ne d, an d st ab il iz ed at art ifi ci al ly h ig h, no n- co m pe ti ti ve le ve ls th ro ug ho ut each Sta te set for th be lo w.”

The se al le ga ti on s ech o th os e fo un d in su ffi ci en t in Pro pa n e En Ban c —t ha t is —t he y are “ na ke d as se rti on [s ] de vo id of fu rth er fact ua l en ha nc em en t,” Iq ba l
, 55 6

-1 3-U.S. at 67 8 (in te rn al q u o t a t i o n m ark s om it te d)
, th at do no t “ rai se a rig ht to rel ie f

ab ov e th e sp ecu la ti ve le ve l,” Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S. at 55 5. Se e Pro pa ne En Ba nc , 86 0
F. 3 d a t 1 06 9- 70

. Yes
, th e Ort iz an d Orr co m pl ai nt s co nt ai n al le ga ti on s de ta il in g

ev en ts in 20 08 an d th ro ug h 20 10 li ke th os e fo un d su ffi ci en t in Pro pa ne En Ban c to pl ead “ th at th e co ns pi racy con ti nu ed in to th e cl as s p eri od .”

Bu t ne it he r th os e al le ga ti on s no r o t h ers in th e co m pl ai nt s “ li st rel ev an t in di vi du al s, act s, an d co nv ers at io ns , pr ov id in g ‘f act ua l co nt en t’ to su pp or t “ th e

r eas on ab le in fere nc e th at th e de fen da nt is li ab le fo r th e m is co nd uc t al le ge d, ” t h a t Defen da nt s are co n s p iri ng to ch arg e su pr a-co m pe ti ti ve pr ic es an d are en ga gi ng in

“ recu rren t vi ol at io ns ” of th e Ja nu ar y 7, 20 15 co ns en t or de rs

. Id

. , qu ot in g Iq ba l
, 55 6
U.S. a t 67 8. The in di rect pu rch as ers ha ve no t ev en ad eq ua te ly pl ead ed th at Defen da nt s ar e cu rren tl y ch arg in g su pr a-co m pe ti ti ve pr ic es , l et al on e a co ns pi racy. The is su e he re is di ffer en t th an th at in Pro pa ne En Ban c

. Bu t Pr o

p a n e En Ban c ’s pl ead in g di sc us si on co n t r o l s. The in di rect pu rch as ers in ad eq ua te ly pl ead an in jury-in -fac t.

The in di rect pu rch as ers ’ in ad eq ua te pl ead in g of an in jury-in -fac t al so m ean s th ey la ck st an d i n g t o p u rs ue th e th ird in jun ct io n gr ou nd (n ot ad dr es se d in th e FTC

or de rs )—t o in crea se th e fil l le ve ls of th e ta nk s to 17 po un ds of pr op an e. Eve n if th ey ha d ad eq ua te ly pl ed an in jury-in -fac t, as th e di st ric t co ur t n o t e d
, th e pa rti es “ ag ree th at m an da ti ng an in crea se in th e am ou nt of pr op an e in th e ta nk s wit ho ut a m an da te
reg ard in g pr ic e wou ld no t de crea se th e pr ic e pe r po un d of pr op an e ta nk s.” Pre- Fi ll ed
Pro pa ne , 20 16 W L 69 63 05 9, at *5

. An in crea se in th e fil l lev el do es no t m ean th at th e cl ai m ed in

jury w il l b e red res se d.

The in di rect pu rch as ers in Ort iz an d Orr la ck st a n d i n g t o pu rs ue th ei r in jun ct iv e-re li ef cl ai m s. Thi s co ur t ne ed no t ad dr es s th e arg um en t th at th e di st ric t

co ur t er red in rul in g t ha t t he do ct rin e o f la ch es ba rs th os e cl ai m s.

-1 4-III.

The in di rect pu rch as ers se ek di sg or ge m en t fo r vi ol at io ns of Sect io n 1 of th e Sh erm an Act. Dis go rg em en t is an eq ui ta bl e rem ed y th at pr o v id es “ a m et ho d of fo rci ng a de fen da nt to gi ve up th e am ou nt by whi ch he was un jus tl y en ric he d.” FTC

v. Br on so n Par tn er

s, LLC , 6 54 F.3 d 35 9, 3 7 2 ( 2 d Ci r. 20 11 ) (ci ta ti on an d in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. The y pl ead : (1 ) “ As a di rect res ul t of th ei r an ti co m pe ti ti ve
pr of it s, Defen da nt s ha ve rece iv ed pr of it s far in ex ces s of th os e th at wou ld ha ve be en

rece iv ed in a co m

pe ti ti ve m ark et ”; (2 ) “ Dis go rg em en t of th es e pr of it s is ne ces sa ry to di ve st Defen da nt s of th e fru it s of th ei r wro ng fu l co nd uc t” ; an d (3 ) “ In th e al te rn at iv e, Pl ai nt iff s req ue st th at Defen da nt s be req ui red to pr ov id e cl as s m em be rs wit h pr op an e
eq ua l in va lu e t o t h e f

i ll red uc ti on s or th e cas h eq ui va le nt ba se d on th en ex is ti ng who le sa le pr ic es .” The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e di sg or ge m en t cl ai m as ba rred by th e st at ut e o f li m it at io ns

.

On ap pe al
, th e i nd ire ct pu rch as ers co nt en d th at be cau se di sg or ge m en t is an
eq ui ta bl e rem ed y , th e do ct rin e of la ch es , no t th e st at ut e o f l im it at io ns , go ve rn s ti m el in es s. The di st ric t co ur t ap pa ren tl y ap pl ie d th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns be cau se it

co ns id ered th e di sg or ge m e nt cl ai m a fed eral -an ti tru st -d am ag es cl ai m

. Bu t un de r Ill in oi s Bri ck
, on ly th e “ ov erch arg ed di rect pu rch as er, an d no t ot he rs in th e ch ai n of

m an uf act ur e or di st rib ut io n” can su e fo r an ti tru st da m ag es un de r Sect io n 4 of th e Cl ay to n Act , 15 U.S.C. § 1 5, whi ch pr ov id es a p riv at e ri gh t o f act io n fo r vi ol at io ns of Sect io n 1 of th e Sh erm an Act. Il li no is Br ic k
, 43 1 U.S. at 72 9; Gins bu rg , 62 3 F.3 d

at 12 33 (ci ti ng Ill in oi s Bri ck to ex p l a i n : “As in di rect pu rch as ers , t he y m ay no t su e fo r da m ag es un de r th e Cl ay to n Act. Bu t in di rect pu rch as ers are pr iv at e pa rti es who

m ay su e fo r in jun ct iv e rel ie f un de r § 1 6 o f th e Act .”).

In Ill in oi s Bri ck
, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ba rred in di rect -p ur ch as er su it s fo r fed eral

an ti tru st da m ag es , reas on in g th at th os e su it s “ wou ld crea te a se rio us ris k of m ul ti pl e li ab il it y fo r de fen da nt s” an d “ th e po ss ib il it y of in co ns is te nt ad jud ic at io ns .” Il

li no is

-1 5-Br ic k
, 43 1 U.S. at 73 0. Th e Co ur t was also co nc ern ed ab ou t th e “ un cert ai nt ie s and

di ffi cu lt ie s i n a na lyzin g p ric e an d ou t-p ut de ci si on s ‘in th e rea l ec on om ic worl d’ . .

. an d of th e co st s to th e jud ic ia l syste m an d th e effi ci en t en fo rcem en t of th e an ti tru st la ws o f at te m

pt in g t o re co ns tru ct th os e d eci si on s i n t he co ur tro om .” Id

. at 7 31 -3 2.

At t he di st ric t co ur t, Defe nd an ts arg ue d th at di sg or ge m en t “ is a th in ly-vei le d

at te m pt to ci rcu m

ve nt th e lo ng -s ta nd in g ho ld in g of Ill in oi s Bri ck .” The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ad dr es s th is is su e. Bu t ot he r co ur ts ha ve co nc lu de d th at Ill in oi s Bri ck

pr oh ib it s i nd ire ct pu rch as ers fro m see ki ng di sg or ge m en t:

Alt ho ug h th e Co ur t’s co nc ern [in Ill in oi s Br ic k ] fo r th e co m

pl ex it y of th e da m ag es pr oc eed in g is no t im pl ic at ed by a d i s g o r ge m en t act io n, pe rm it ti ng di sg or ge m en t do es rai se th e sp ect er of du pli ca tiv e re co ve rie s. Und er th e Cl ay to n Act, pr iv at e pa rti es

. . . can al r e a d y p u rs ue di rect pu rch as er act io ns fo r tre bl e da mag e s u n d er § 4. 15 U.S.C. § 15

. . . . Perm it ti ng di sg or ge m en t un de r § 16 wou ld pr ov id e y et an ot he r ro ut e to de fen da nt s’ al le ge dl y il l-g ot te n ga in s, an d wou ld th eref or e he ig ht en th e po ss ib il it y th at de fe n d a n t s in an ti tru st act io ns co ul d be ex po se d to

m ul ti pl e li ab il i ty. W hi le di sg or ge m en t wou ld ha ve th e ad di ti on al be ne fit of pe rm it ti ng [co m pe ns at io n fo r] in di rect pu rch as ers who are
ex cl ud ed fro m reco ve ry un de r cu rren t la w, th e Su pr em e Co ur t weig he d th is in te res t ag ai ns t th e th rea t of du pl ic at iv e reco ve ry an d de te rm in ed th at on ly dire ct pu rch as ers ha ve st an di ng un de r th e Cl ay to n Act

.

FTC v. Myl

an La b s . , In c. , 62 F. Su pp

. 2d 25
, 41 (D.D.C. 19 99 ); se e al so In re Dig it al Mus ic Ant

it ru st Lit ig

. , 81 2 F. Su pp

. 2d 39 0, 41 2 (S.D.N.Y. 20 11 ) (“ i t is be y on d pe rad ve nt ur e th at in di rect pu rch as ers m ay no t em pl oy u nju st en ric hm en t to sk irt th e li m it at io n on reco ve ry im po se d by Ill in oi s Bri ck

. . . . Mo reo ve r, th ere is no cl earl y es ta bl is he d fed eral co m m on la w of res ti tu ti on fo r a fed eral an ti tru st vi ol at io n,

an d Pl ai nt iff

s do no t su gg es t th at th e Co ur t crea te on e. The refo re, ab se nt a ba si s fo r

r e s ti tu ti on in fed eral la w bo th di rect an d in di rect pu rch as ers m ay no t br in g un ju s t

en ric hm en t cl ai m s pr em is ed so le ly on a vi ol at io n of fed eral la w.”); I n re Fl on as e Ant it ru st Li t i g . , 69 2 F. Su pp

. 2d 52 4, 54 2 (E.D. Pa. 20 10 ) (“ The po li cy of Ill in oi s

-1 6-Bri ck pr oh ib it s in di rect pu rch as ers fro m su in g th e m an uf act ur er to reco ve r an y il l-g ot te n ga in s th e m an uf act ur er ha s ob ta in ed by vi ol at in g an ti tru st la w s

. . . . All owi ng in di rect pu rch as ers to reco ve r a n d reco up a be ne fit fro m th e de fen da nt

un de r an un

jus t en ric hm en t th e o ry wou ld ci rcu m ve nt th e po li cy ch oi ce of Ill in oi s Bri ck .”); In re Tera zo si n Hyd ro chl or id e Ant it ru st Lit ig

. , 16 0 F. Su pp

. 2d 13 65
, 13 80 (S.D. Fl a. 20 01 ) (“

Ill in oi s Bri ck ex pr es se d co nc ern s th at in di rect pu rch as ers act io ns

wou ld le ad to co m

pl ex ap po rti on m en t di sp ut es am on g in jure d pa rti es , un de rm in e th e effi ci en t en fo rcem en t of an ti tru st la ws, o r ex po se de fen da nt s to th e ris k of m ul ti pl e li ab il it y

. The en d pa y or s’ un jus t en ric hm en t cl ai m rai se s id en ti cal co nc ern s.

. . . St at e le gi sl at ur es an d co ur ts th at ad op te d th e Ill in oi s Bri ck ru le ag ai ns t in di rect pu rch as er

an ti tru st su it s di d no t in te nd to al lo w an en d ru n ar o un d th e po li ci es al lo win g on ly di rect pu rch as ers to reco ve r.”) (i nt ern al cit at io ns an d q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)

.

Thi s co ur t agre es wit h th os e di st ric t cou rts

. Here, the in di rect pu rch as ers are tryin g to us e di sg or ge m en t to g e t p r o f i t s, or “ pr op an e eq ua l in va lu e to th e fil l red uc ti on s or th e cas h eq ui va le nt ba se d on th en ex is ti ng who le sa le pr ic es

. ” Tho se
req ue st s vi ol at e th e po li cy co nc ern s in Ill in oi s Bri ck

. The in di rect pu rch as ers can no t
pu rs ue di sg or ge m en t , an im pe rm is si bl e at te m

pt to ci rcu m

ve nt Su pr em e Co ur t
pr eced en t. Se e Br ow n v. St

. Loui s Poli ce Dep’t of Ci ty of S t. Lo ui s , 69 1 F .2d 39 3,
39 6 (8 th Cir . 19 82 ) (“ W e m ay

. . . affi rm

on an y gro un d s up po rte d b y

th e rec or d” ).

IV.

The in di rect pu rch as ers arg u e th at th is co ur t’s ho ld in g in Pro pa ne En
Ban c —t ha t “ ‘each sa le to th e pl ai nt iff [s ]’ in a pr ic e-fi xi ng co ns pi racy ‘st art s th e
st at ut or y pe rio d ru nn in g a g a i n’”—m ean s th at th e st at e-l aw-d am ag es cl ai m s of th e

ne w pu rch as er su bc la ss es an d th e si x- y ear st at ut e-o f-l im i t a t i on s su bc la ss are no t ti m e-b arre d. Se e Pro

pa ne En Ba nc , 86 0 F.3 d at 10 68
, qu ot in g Kl ehr v. A.O. Sm it

h
Co rp . , 5 21 U.S. 1 79 , 1 89 (1 9 9 7 )

. Th i s co ur t de cl in es to ad dr es s th at is su e, in st ead

rem an di ng to th e di st ric t co ur t t o c o n s id er a th res ho ld is su e: as su m in g ti m el in es s, whe th er t he st at e-l aw-d am ag es cla im s s ho ul d re m ai n i n fe de ral co ur t.

-1 7-Fed eral c o u r t s “ po ss es s on ly th at po wer au th or iz ed by Co ns ti tu ti on an d

st at ut e.” Ko kk on en v. Gua rd ia n Life In s. Co

. o

f A m . , 51 1 U.S. 37 5, 37 7 (1 99 4)

.

“ [I]t is well es ta bl is he d— in cert ai n cl as se s of cas es —t ha t, on ce a co ur t has or ig in al juri sd ic ti on ov er so m e cl ai m s in th e act io n, it m ay ex erci se su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on

ov er add it io na l clai m s th at are par t of the sa m e cas e or co nt ro ve rs y .” Ex xo n Mo bi l
Co rp . v. All

ap at ta h Ser vs ., Inc. , 54 5 U.S. 5 46 , 55 2 (2 00 5)

.

Bu t “ Co ng res s un am

bi gu ou sl y ga v e di st ric t co ur ts di sc ret io n in 28 U.S.C. §
13 67 (c) to di sm is s su pp le m en ta l st at e la w cl ai m s whe n al l fed eral cl ai m s hav e be en di sm is se d.” Gib so n v. Web er , 43 1 F .3d 33 9, 3 42 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5) . By § 1 36 7( c):

The di st ric t co ur ts m ay de cl in e to ex erci se su pp l e ment al juri sd ic ti on
ov er a cl ai m

un de r su bs ect io n (a ) if

— (1 ) th e cl ai m

rai se s a n ov el or c om

pl ex is su e o f St at e la w,
(2 ) th e cl ai m su bs ta nt ia ll y pr ed om in at es ov er th e cl ai m or c l a i ms o ve r whi ch th e d is tri ct co ur t h as ori gi na l ju ris di ct io n,
(3 ) th e di st ric t co ur t ha s di sm is se d al l cl ai m s ov er whi ch it ha s or ig in al juri sd ic ti on , or
(4 ) in ex cep ti on al ci rcu m st an ces , th ere are ot he r co m pe ll in g reas on s fo r de cl in in g ju ris di ct io n.

Here, th is co ur t ha s a f

f i r med th e di sm is sa ls of th is cas e’s fed eral cl ai m s. And th is

cas e ap pe ars to rai se “ no ve l o r co m pl ex ” is su es of t he laws of m ul ti pl e st at es . This

co ur t rem an ds to t h e d i s t r ic t co ur t to an al y ze un de r § 13 67 (c) whe th er it sh ou ld

ex erci se su pp le m en ta l ju ris di ct io n o ve r th e st at e-l aw cl ai m s. Se e Lap id es v. Bo ar d of Reg ent s of Univ. Sys

. of Geo rg ia
, 53 5 U.S. 61 3, 62 4 (20 02 ) (n ot in g th at un de r §
13 67 (c)( 3)
, “ th e Dis tri ct Co ur t m ay well fin d th at th is cas e, no w rai si ng on ly st at e-l aw is su es , sh ou ld

. . . be rem an de d to th e st at e co ur ts fo r de te rm in at io n.” ). If th e di st ric t

co ur t de ci de s to ex erci se su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on , th en th is co ur t di rect s th e di st ric t

-1 8-co ur t to co ns id er th e im pa ct of Pro

pa ne En Ban c o n t h e ti m el in es s of th e st at e-l aw cl ai m s.

** ** ** *

The jud gm en t is affi rm ed in pa rt, an d th e cas e rem an de d fo r pr oc e ed in gs

co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 9-