# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 27 89

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

In re: In R e: Pre -F il le d P ro pa ne Tank Ant it ru st Lit ig at io n

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

Hart ig Drug Co m

pa ny; Ja so n M oo re’s Tex aco , L.L. C., do in g b us in es s as Mo or e’s

Tex aco ; M ari o Ort iz ; St ep he n M or ris on ; St ev en Tsef fo s; Glen vi ll e Sh el l, LLC;

Zarco USA, Inc .; AQ In ve st m en ts , LLC; LJa x En te rp ris es , Inc .; J & V

Man ag em en t, LLC; Bu tc h’s Ce nt ral Co as ta l, In c.; Zer ka ’s Part y Sto re, In c.; OM
Co m m erci al Neen ah Oil , Inc .; CC LAS, Inc .; Ho pe well Exx on , LLC; Tub an Pet ro le um , LLC; 3 3 a nd a Thi rd , LLC; Tub an 61 0, LLC; Hig hwa y 18 2, LLC;

W es t M ai n S tre et , LLC; Ro th ’s Cou nt ry Co rn er, In c.; 1 91 9 Ai rli ne Hwy ., LLC;

East Airl in e, LLC; Gramercy Ch eap Sm ok es , LLC; Co nt i’s Se rv ic e Cen te r, In c.; Ro ut e 4 9 Gas & Go, In c.; S ur in de r Kau r, In c.

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

ff s

Mo rg an -Lars on , LLC

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

ff - App el la nt

Ash vi ll e Gen eral Sto re, In c.; S ean 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 ; Bryce Man de r; Al ex Ch ern av sk y ; Arro w Hard ware, LLC; Bir di e’s, In c.; Al ex Ch ern av sk y ; Lo ch rav en Su no co , Inc .; Am eri can Aut o R ep ai r

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

ff s

Jo hn so n Au to Elec tri c, In c.

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

ff - App el la ntCed ar Ho ll y Inv es tm en ts , LLC; Tuc ke rto n Lu m be r Co m pa ny; Ace Hig h Au to Rep ai r & Pro pa ne ; CEFO En te rp ris e Co rp .; J on W al l, In c.; R C Gas ol in e

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

ff s

Sp eed Sto p 3 2, In c.

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

ff - App el la nt

Z ar co U SA

, In c. ; D unm or e Oil Co

., In c.; Jo Jo Oil Co

., In c.; Eko no m y Ent erp ris es , In c.

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

ff s

Yoc um Oil Co m pa ny, Inc.

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

ff - App el la nt

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 Part ne rs , LP a li m it ed

pa rtn ers hi p; UGI Cor

po rat io n; Am eri Gas Pro pa ne , Inc ., do in g b us in es s as Am eri Gas Cy li nd er Ex ch an ge ; Am eri Gas Pro pa ne , LP

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

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

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: Apri l 4 , 20 17
Fil ed : J un e 2 3, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SMI TH, Ch ie f Ju dg e, WO LL M AN, LOKEN, RILEY, COLLOTON, GRUENDER, BENTON , SHEPHERD, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es , En Ban c.

__ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Pl ai nt iff s Mo rg an -Lars on , LLC, Jo hn so n Aut o Elec tri c, In c., Sp eed St op 32

, In c., an d Yoc um Oil Co m pa ny, In c. su ed Defen da nt s 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 ”), Am eri Gas Part ne rs , L.P., Am eri Gas

Pro pa ne , In c., an d Am eri Gas Pro pa ne , L.P. (co ll ect iv el y “ Am eri Gas ”) un de r Sect io n

1 of th e Sh erm an Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e cl ai m s as ba rred
by th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns

. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

, th is co ur t

rev ers es

.

I.

Ferr el lg a s an d Am eri Gas are th e la rg es t di st rib ut or s of pr e-fi ll ed pr op an e

1

ex ch an ge ta nk s, whic h com e in a st an da rd si ze. Bef or e 2 00 8, Def

en 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 op an e pr ic es , Defen da nt s
red uc ed th e am ou nt of pr op an e in each ta nk fro m 17 to 15 po un ds

, bu t m ai nt ai ne d th e

sa m e pr ic e. Acco rd in g to th e a men de d co m pl ai nt

, “ th is am ou nt ed to an effe ct iv e

pr ic e in crea se of 1 3%.”

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 Sect i o n 1 o f th e
Sh erm an Act an d s ta te an ti tru st an d c on su m er p ro te ct io n l aws . In 2 01 0, t he pa rti es

se tt le d. Se e In re Pre- Fi ll ed Pro pa ne Tank M

kt g. & Sa le s Pra ct

ic es Lit ig

., No.

09 -2 08 6- MD-W-GAF, 20 10 W L 20 08 83 7 (W

. D

. Mo. May 19

, 20 10 ) (ap pr ov in g fir st

am en de d s et tl em en t ag reem en t).

Ferr el lg as do es bu si ne ss as “ Bl ue Rh in o.” 1

-3

-In 20 14

, th e Fed eral Trad e Co mm i s s i o n is su ed a co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t

Defen da nt s— la te r se tt le d— fo 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 Pa rt ner s, L. P., et al

. , Doc ke t No. 93 60 , 20 14 W L 13 96 49 6 (M ar. 2 7,

2 0 1 4 )

. Late r th at y ear, Pl ai nt iff s in th is cas e—d ire ct pu rch as ers who bo ug ht ta nk s
di rect ly fro m Defen da nt s fo r res al e—s ue d. The y al le ge Defen da nt s co ll ud e d t o
de crea se th e fil l le ve l of ta nk s an d co nt in u e d t o c h arg e “ su pr aco m pe ti ti ve pr ic es

. . . th ro ug ho ut th e Cl as s Pe rio d.”

The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d Pl ai nt iff s’ cl ai m s as ba rre d b y t he st at ut e of

li m it at io ns

. On ap pe al

, a di vi de d pa ne l of th is co ur t affi rm ed

. I n r e Pre- Fi ll

ed

Pro pa ne Tank Ant

it ru st Lit ig

., 83 4 F.3 d 94 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ), as co rr ect ed (Au g. 25

, 20 16 ), re h’

g en ba nc gr an te d, op in io n vac at ed (Dec. 29 , 20 16 ). Thi s cou rt gra nt ed

reh eari ng en ba nc , vac at ed th e p an el de ci si on , and no w rev ers es

.

II.

Thi s cou rt rev ie ws de no vo th e g ran t of a m ot io n to di sm is s. Chr is ti an se n v.

Wes t Bra nch Cm ty

. Sch. Dist

. , 67 4 F.3d 92 7, 93 3- 34 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). To su rv iv e a

m ot io n to di sm is s fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m , t he co m pl ai nt m us t sh ow th e pl ai nt iff

“ is en ti tl ed to rel ie f,” Fed. R. Civ

. P. 8( a) (2 )

, by al le gi ng “ su ffi ci en t fact ua l m at te r,

acce pt ed as t ru e, to ‘ st at 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 Bel l 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 da nt is li ab l e 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. at 55 6. “ The pl au si bi li ty st an da rd

. . . as ks

fo r m or e th an a sh eer po ss ib il it y th at a d efen da nt ha s ac te d u nl awfu ll y .” Id

. , cit in g

Two m bl y , 55 0 U.S. at 55 6. “ A pl ead i n g t h a t o f f ers ‘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 ‘na k e d a s 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 5 5 5

, 5 5 7 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

-4

-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 r e l i e f ab ov e th e

sp ecu la ti ve lev el .” Two m bl y , 55 0 U.S. at 55 5.

Als o rev ie wed de no vo is whe th er a cl ai m is ba rred by th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns

. McDo no ug h v. Ano ka Cnt y. , 7 99 F.3 d 93 1, 93 9- 40 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). “ A c ou r t may

di sm is s a co m

pl ai nt un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 12 (b )(6 ) as ba rred by a

st at ut e of li m it at io ns if th e co m pl ai nt it se lf sh ows th at th e cl ai m is t i me- b a r r ed .”

W o n g v. Wel

ls Fa rg o Ba nk N.A. , 7 89 F.3 d 88 9, 89 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ), ci ti ng Il li g v.

Unio n El ec. Co

. , 65 2 F.3 d 97 1, 97 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Acti on s un de r Sect io n 1 of th e

Sh erm an Act m

us t be fil ed “ wit hi n fo ur y ears aft er th e cau se of act io n accr ue d.” 15

U.S.C. § 15 b

. “ Gen eral ly, th e p e r i o d co m m en ces on th e da te th e cau se of act io n

accr ue s, th at be in g, th e da te on whi ch th e wro ng do er co m m it s an act th at in

jure s th e

bu si ne ss of an ot he r.” V ar ner v. Pete rs on Fa rm s , 37 1 F.3 d 10 11

, 10 19 (8 th Ci r.

20 04 ), ci ti ng Zeni th Ra di o Co rp

. v. Ha ze lt in e Res ea rc h, In c. , 40 1 U.S. 32 1

, 3 38
(1 97 1)

.

Pl ai nt iff s al le ge a co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n— an ex cep ti o n to th e ge ne ral

ru le —wh ic h res ta rts th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns pe rio d each ti m e th e de fen da nt co m m it s

an ov ert act

. Se e id

. “ An ov er t a c t ha s two el em en ts : (1 ) it m us t be a ne w an d

in de pe nd en t act th at is no t m erel y a reaf fir m at io n of a pr ev io us act

, an d (2 ) it m us t

in fli ct ne w an d accu m

ul at in g in jury on th e pl ai nt iff

.” Id

. , ci ti ng Pac e In du s., In c. v.

Thre e Pho eni

x C o. , 81 3 F .2d 23 4, 2 38 (9t h C ir. 1 98 7)

.

III.

Pl ai nt iff s al le ge two types of ov ert act s wit hi n th e li m it a t i o ns pe rio d: (1 )

Defen da nt s’ sa le s to Pl ai nt iff s at art ifi ci al ly in fla te d pr ic es ; an d (2 ) co ns pi rat or ia l

co m m un ic at io ns be twee n Defen da nt s ab ou t pr ic in g an d fil l le ve ls

. The fir st type of

act is at is s u e h e r e

— whe th er sa le s at art ifi ci al ly in fla te d pr ic es are ov ert act s th at

-5

-r e s t a r t th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns

. Als o at is su e is whe th er Pl ai nt iff s al le ge a 2

co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n e xc ep ti on su ffi ci en t t o re st art th e st at ut e o f li m it at io ns

.

A.

The Su pr em e Co ur t of th e Uni te d St at e s ad dr es se d th e fir st is su e in Kl eh r v.

A.O. Smi th Co rp or at io n , 52 1 U.S. 17 9 (1 99 7)

. The Su pr em e Co ur t de fin ed a

co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n u nd er an ti tru st law:

Ant it ru st la w pr ov id es th at

, in th e cas e of a “ co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n,” sa y ,
a pr ic e-fi xi ng co ns p i r a cy th at br in gs ab ou t a se rie s of un la wfu ll y hi gh

pr ic ed sa le s ov er a pe rio d of y ears , “ e a c h o v e r t a c t th at is pa rt of th e vi ol at io n an d th at in

jure s th e pl ai nt iff

,” e.g
., each sa le to th e p la in ti ff,

“ st art s th e st at ut or y pe rio d ru nn in g ag ai n, reg a r d l es s of th e pl ai nt iff ’s
kn owl ed ge of t he all eg ed il le ga li ty at m uc h e arl ie r ti m es .”

Kl ehr , 52 1 U.S. at 18 9, qu ot in g 2 P. Areed a & H. H ov enk amp, Antitr us t La w ¶

33 8b , p. 1 45 (rev . ed. 1 99 5) (he rei na fte r 2 Are eda & Hov enk amp ).

Defen da nt s arg ue Kl eh r do es no t ap pl y be cau s e i t i s a RICO cas e, an d th e

q u o t e d l a n g ua ge is di ct a. Thi s co ur t an d ot he rs ha ve he ld th at “ fed eral co ur ts ‘ar e
bo un d by th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s co ns id ered di ct a al m os t as fir m ly as by th e Co ur t’s

ou tri gh t ho ld in gs , pa rti cu la rly whe n

. . . [th e di ct a] is of r e c e n t v i n ta ge an d no t

en feeb le d by an y [la te r] st at em en t.’” Jo nes v. St

. Paul Co
., In c. , 49 5 F.3 d 88 8, 89 3
( 8 t h Ci r. 20 15 ), qu ot in g Ci ty of Tim be r Lak e v. Chey enne Ri ver Si ou x Tri b e , 1 0

F.3 d 55 4, 55 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ), qu ot in g McC oy v. Ma ss ac hus et

ts In st

. of Tech

. , 95 0

F.2 d 13

, 19 (1 st Ci r. 19 91 ). Se e Am er ic an Ci vi l Lib er ti es Unio n of Ky. v. McC

re ar y

Bec au se co nt in ue d sa le s at su pr aco m pe ti ti ve pr ic es are ov ert act s un de r t h e 2

co nt in ui ng vi ol at io ns th eo ry , t hi s co ur t n e e d no t ad dr es s Pl ai nt iff s’ a ll eg at io ns th at Defen da nt s’ co ns pi rat or ia l co m m un ic at io ns a b o ut pr ic in g an d fil l le ve ls were ad di ti on al ov ert act s s uf

fic ie nt to in vo ke th e th eo ry

.

-6

-Cnt

y., Ky.

, 60 7 F.3 d 43 9, 44 7 (6 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ Lower co ur ts are ob li ga te d to fo ll ow

Su pr em e Co ur t di ct a, pa rti cu la rly whe re th ere is no t su bs t a n t i a l reas on fo r
di sr eg ard in g i t

, s u c h as ag e or su bs eq ue nt st at em en ts un de rm in in g it s rat io na le .”)
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; Gay lo r v. Unit ed St at es , 74 F.3 d 21 4, 21 7 (1 0t h

Ci r. 1 9 9 6 ) ( “ W hi le th es e st at em en ts are di ct a, th is co ur t co ns id ers it se lf bo un d by

Su pr em e Co ur t di ct a al m os t as fir m ly as by th e Co ur t’s ou tri gh t ho ld in gs , pa rti cu la rly

whe n t he di ct a is rece nt an d n ot en feeb le d b y lat er s ta te m en ts .”).

Alt ho ug h pa ne ls ha ve he ld th at fed eral co ur ts are “ bo un d” by Su pr em e Co ur t

di ct a, th is go es to o far. App el la te co ur ts sh ou ld affo rd de fere nc e an d res pe ct to

S u p r e me Co ur t di ct a, pa rti cu la rly wh ere, as he re, it is co ns is te nt wit h lo ng st an di n g

Su pr em e Co ur t pr eced en t. Se e Offi ci al Co m m

. o f Unse cur ed Cr ed

it or s of
Cyb er ge ni cs Co rp

. v. Chi ner y , 33 0 F.3 d 54 8, 56 1 (3 d Ci r

. 2 0 0 3 ) (en ba nc )
(“ Alt ho ug h th e Co m

m it te e is do ub tl es s co rrec t th at th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s di ct a are no t

bi nd in g on us , we do no t vi ew it li gh tl y

. . . . [W] e sh ou ld no t id ly ig no re co ns id ered

st at em en ts th e Su pr em e Co ur t m ak es in di ct a.”); Unit ed St at es v. Mo nt

er o- Ca m ar

go , 20 8 F.3 d 11 22

, 11 32 n.1 7 ( 9 t h Ci r. 20 00 ) (en ba nc ) (“ W e do no t tre at co ns id ered

di ct a fro m

th e Su pr em e Co ur t l ig ht ly. Rat he r, we acco rd it ap pr op ria te de fere nc e.

.

. . As we ha ve freq ue nt ly ack no wled ge d, Su pr em e Co ur t di ct a ha ve a weig ht th at is

gr eat er th an or di na ry jud ic ia l di ct a as pr op he cy of wha t th at C o u r t migh t ho ld ;

acco rd in gl y , we d o no t bl an dl y sh ru g th em of f be cau se th ey were no t a ho ld in g.” )
(ci ta ti on s an d in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; Nich ol v. Pull m an St an da rd
, In c. , 88 9 F.2 d 11 5, 12 0 n.8 (7 th Ci r. 19 89 ) (“ Thi s Co ur t sh ou ld res pe ct co ns id ered

Su pr em e Co ur t di ct a.”); Pi erre N. Lev a l

, J u d g i ng Und er th e Co ns ti tu ti on : Dict a

Abo ut Dict a , 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 24 9 , 12 69 -7 5 (2 00 6)

.

Kl e h r ’ s de fin it io n of a co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n fo ll ows lo ng st an di ng Su pr em e

Co ur t pr eced en t. The Su pr em e Co ur t fir st ap pl ie d th e do ct rin e in Han ov er Sh oe
, In c.

v. Uni te d Sh oe Mac hi ne ry Co rp

. , 39 2 U.S. 48 1 (1 96 8)

. Han ov er al le ge d th at Uni te d,

it s sh oe m ach in ery m an uf act ur er an d di st rib ut or , m on op ol iz ed th e in du st ry in

-7

-vi ol at io n of Sect io n 2 of th e Sh erm an Act. Ha no ver Sho e , 39 2 U.S. at 48 3- 84

.

Uni te d m ov ed to di sm is s t h e c l a i ms as ti m e-b arre d be cau se “ th e earl ie st im pa ct on

Han ov er of Uni te d’s le as e on ly po li cy oc cu rred in 19 12 .” Id

. at 50 2 n.1 5. Reject in g

th at arg um en t, t he Su pr em e Co ur t s ai d:

W e are no t de al in g wit h a vi ol at io n whi ch

, if it oc cu rs at al l, m us t oc cu r wit hi n so m e sp eci fic an d li m it ed ti m e sp an

. . . . Rat he r, we are de al in g wit h co nd uc t whi ch co ns ti tu te d a co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n of th e Sh erm an Act an d whi ch in fli ct ed co nt in ui ng an d accu m ul at in g ha rm on Han ov er. Alt ho ug h Han ov er co ul d ha ve su ed in 19 12 fo r t h e in jury th en be in g in fli ct ed , it was e qu al ly ent it le d t o s ue in 19 55

.

Id

.

The Su pr em e Co ur t ag ai n ap pl ie d th e do ct rin e in Zen it h Ra d io Co rp

. v.

Haz el ti ne Rese ar ch

, In c. , 40 1 U.S. 32 1 (1 97 1)

, a cas e al le gi ng an ti tru st vi ol at io ns by

u n l awfu l pa rti ci pa ti on in pa te nt po ol s. The is su e was “ whe th er Zen it h can r e c o v e r

in it s 19 63 su it fo r da m ag es su ffer ed aft er Ju ne 1, 19 59

, as th e co n s eq ue nc e of

pr e-1 95 4 co ns pi rat or ia l co nd uc t.” Zeni th

, 40 1 U.S. at 33 8. Des cri bi ng whe n an

an ti tru st cla im

accr ue s u nd er 1 5 U.S.C. § 15 b, t he Co ur t s ai d:

Gen eral ly, a cau se of act io n accr ue s an d th e st at ut e be gi ns to ru n whe n

a de fen da nt co m

m it s an act th at in

jure s a pl ai nt iff ’s bu si ne ss

. . . . In th e

co nt ex t of a co nt in ui ng co ns pi racy to vi ol at e th e an ti tru st la ws, su ch as th e co ns pi racy in t h e i n s t an t cas e, th is ha s us ua ll y be en un de rs to od to

m ean th a t each ti m e a pl ai nt iff is in jure d by an act of th e de fen da nt s a

cau se of act io n accr ue s to hi m to reco ve r th e da m ag es cau se d by th at act

an d th at

, as to th os e da m ag es , th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns ru ns fro m th e

co m m is si on of t he act

.

Id

. Kl eh r th us is co ns is te nt wit h th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n do ct rin e

as est ab li sh ed in Han ov er Sh oe an d Zen it h

.

-8

-Kl eh r al so is co ns is te nt wit h Ar e e d a a n d Hov en ka m p’s Ant it ru st Law, th e
le ad in g t reat is e o n t he su bjec t. The ve rs io n o f th e tr eat is e qu ot ed in Kl eh r ex pl ai ns

th at

, “ In th e cas e of a co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n, each ov ert act th at is pa rt of th e vi ol at io n

an d th at in

jure s th e pl ai nt iff st art s th e st at ut or y pe rio d ru nn in g ag ai n.” 2 Areed a &

Ho ve nk amp , at 14 5. Ci ti ng Han ov er Sh oe , it al so di rect ly ad dr es se s ad di ti on al sa le s

at fix ed pr ic es : “ so lo ng as an il le ga l pr ic e-fi xi ng co ns pi racy was al iv e, each sa le at

th e fix ed pr ic e [s ta rte d th e fo ur -y ear st at ut e of li m it at io n an ew].” Id

. , ci ti ng Ha no ver

Sho e , 39 2 U.S. at 50 2 n .15

.

Eve ry ot he r ci rcu it to co ns id er th is is su e ap pl ie s Kl eh r , ho ld in g th at each sa le

in a pr ic e-fi xi ng co ns pi racy is an ov ert act th at res ta rts th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns

. Se e

Oli ver v. SD-3 C LLC

, 75 1 F.3 d 10 81

, 10 86 (9 t h C i r

. 2 0 1 4 ) (“ Turn in g fir st to th e

co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n ex cep ti on , th e Su pr em e Co ur t an d fed eral ap pe ll at e co ur ts ha ve

reco gn iz ed th at each ti m e a de fen da nt se ll s it s pr ic e-fi xe d pr od uc t, th e sa le co ns ti tu te s

a ne w ov ert act cau si ng in

jury to th e pu rch as er an d th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns ru ns fro m

th e da te of th e act .”); In re Tra v e l A g e n t Co m m ’n Ant it ru st Lit ig

. , 58 3 F.3 d 89 6,

90 2 (6 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (“

Kl eh r si m

pl y rei te rat es th at th e an ti tru st la ws reco gn iz e

co nt in ui ng vi ol at io ns an d, m or e pr eci se ly, th at a n e w § 1 cl ai m ari se s each ti m e a

co m pa ny se ll s a pr ic e-fi xe d pr od uc t.”) ; In re Co tt on Y ar n Ant it ru st Lit ig

. , 50 5 F.3 d

27 4, 29 0- 91 (4 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (“ In th e co nt ex t of a co nt in ui ng co ns pi racy to vi ol at e th e

an ti tru st la ws,

. . . each ti m e a pl ai nt iff is in jure d by an act of th e de fen da nt s a cau se

of act io n accr ue s to hi m to reco ve r th e da m ag es cau se d by th at act an d th at

, as to

th os e da m ag es , th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns ru ns fro m th e co m m is si on of th e act

. Thu s,

in cas es li ke th is on e in vo lv in g al le ga ti on s of a pr ic e-fi xi ng co ns pi racy t h a t b rin gs
ab ou t a se rie s of un la wfu ll y hi gh pr ic ed sa le s ov er a pe rio d of y ears , e ach ov ert act

th at is pa rt of th e vi ol at io n an d th at in jure s th e pl ai nt iff

, e.g
., each sa le to th e pl ai nt iff

,
st art s th e st at ut or y pe rio d ru nn in g ag ai n.” ) ( c i t a t i on an d in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d) ; Mo rt on ’s Mk t., In c. v

. G u st af so n’s Dai ry

, I nc. , 1 98 F.3 d 82 3, 82 8 (1 1t h

Ci r. 19 99 ), ame nd ed in pa rt , 2 11 F.3 d 12 24 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 00 ) (“ An act co ns ti tu te s a

co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n, if it in jure s th e pl ai nt iff ov er a pe rio d of ti m e. Eve n th ou gh th e

-9

-il le ga l act oc cu rs at a sp eci fic po in t in ti m e, if it in fli ct s co nt in ui ng an d accu m ul at in g

ha rm on a pl ai nt iff

, an an ti tru st vi ol at io n occ ur s each ti m e th e pl ai nt iff is in jure d by

th e act

. Fo r ex am

pl e, whe n se ll ers c o n s p ire to fix th e pr ic e of a pr od uc t, each ti m e

a cu st om er pu rch as e s t h a t pr od uc t at th e art ifi ci al ly in fla te d pr ic e, an an ti tru st

vi ol at io n oc cu rs an d a cau se of act io n accr ue s. As a cau se of act io n accr ue s wit h each

sa le

, th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns be gi ns to ru n an ew.”) (ci ta ti on s an d in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s o m it te d)

.

Thi s co ur t rece nt ly es ta bl is he d th at Kl eh r co nt ro ls

. In In re W ho le sa le Gro cer

y

Pro du ct s Ant it ru st Li ti

ga ti on , 75 2 F.3 d 72 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ), t w o r i va l who le sa le rs

al le ge dl y us ed an ass et -ex ch an ge ag reem en t t o a ll oc at e cu st om ers an d t erri to rie s in

vi ol at io n of Sect io n 1 of th e Sh erm an Act. Who le sa le Gro cer y , 75 2 F.3 d at 72 9. The
pl ai nt iff s su ed m or e th an fo ur y ears aft er th e ag reem en t. Id

. at 73 1. The de fen da nt s

arg ue d th e cl ai ms w e re un ti m el y an d th e co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n th eo ry in ap pl ic ab le

be cau se sal es at s up raco m pe ti ti ve pri ces were n ot ov ert act s. Id

. Thi s co ur t h el d:

The ti m el in es s qu es ti on in th is cas e is co nt ro ll ed by Kl eh r v. A.O. Smi th
Co r p

. , 52 1 U.S. 17 9, 11 7 S. Ct

. 19 84

, 13 8 L.Ed.2 d 37 3 (1 99 7)

. In

K le hr

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at “ in th e cas e of a co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n,” “ each ov ert a c t th at is pa rt of th e vi ol at io n an d th at in jure s th e pl ai nt iff

, e.g
., ea ch sa le to t h e p l ai nt if f, st art s th e st at ut or y pe rio d

r u n n i n g ag ai n, reg ard le ss of th e pl ai nt iff ’s kn owl ed ge of th e al le g e d
il le ga li ty at m

uc h e arl ie r ti m es .”

Id

. at 73 6, qu ot in g Kl

ehr , 5 21 U.S. a t 18 9. Se e Co nco rd Bo at Co rp . v . B ru ns wi ck

C or p. , 20 7 F.3 d 10 39

, 10 52 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (rec og ni zi ng th at “ each ne w sa l e b y a
Sh erm an Act p ric e fi xi ng de fen da nt ” is a “ se pa rat e n ew ov ert act ”).

Defen da nt s arg ue W

ho le sa le Gro cer

y do es n ot ap pl y be cau se “ th e

an ti co m pe ti ti ve na tu re of th e who le sa le rs ’ ag reem en t was not rev eal ed un ti l se ve ral

y ears aft er th e as se t ex ch an ge .” Who le sa le Gro cer y , 75 2 F.3 d a t 7 3 6

. Bu t,

-1 0-kn owl ed ge of an ti co m pe ti ti ve c o nd uc t is no t rel ev an t to th e co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n

an al y si s. As th e Su pr em e Co ur t s ay s, “ each sal e to th e pl ai nt iff , s ta rts th e st at ut or y

pe rio d ru nn in g ag ai n, re

ga rd le ss of th e pl ai nt if

fs ’ kn ow le dg e of th e al le

ge d il le ga li ty

at muc h ea rl ie r ti mes .” Kl ehr

, 52 1 U.S. at 18 9 (em

ph as is ad de d) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s o m it te d)

.

Defen da nt s rel y on Var ne r v. Pete rs on Far ms , 37 1 F.3d 10 11 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 )

to arg ue th at co nt i n u e d a n ti co m pe ti ti ve co nd uc t, wit ho ut m or e, do es no t res ta rt th e

li m it at io ns pe rio d. The re, th e de fen da nt s in du ced th e pl ai nt iff s to ta ke o u t a lo an

ba se d on fal se in fo rm at io n. V ar ner , 37 1 F.3 d at 10 14 -1 5. Mo re th an fo ur y ears la te r,

th e pl ai nt iff

s su ed fo r an ti tru st “ tying ” vi ol at io ns un de r a co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n th eo ry

. Id

. at 10 15

. Thi s co ur t reject ed th e th eo ry , ho ld in g th at “ [p ]erfor m an ce of th e al le ge d

an ti co m pe ti ti ve co nt ract s du rin g th e li m it at io ns pe rio d is no t su ffi ci en t to res ta rt th e

pe rio d,” be cau se “ [a]cts th at are m erel y un ab at ed in ert ia l co ns eq ue nc es of a si ng le act

do no t res ta rt th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns .” Id

. at 10 1 9

- 2 0 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

.

Thi s cas e is di st in gu is ha bl e. Var ne r is ab ou t a tying arra ng eme n t

, no t “ a

pr ic e-fi xi ng co ns pi racy th at br in gs ab ou t a se rie s of un la wfu ll y hi gh pr ic ed sa le s ov er

a pe rio d o f ye ars .” Kl

ehr , 5 21 U.S. a t 18 9. Unl ik e th e ve rti cal res tra in t in Var ne r , th e ho riz on ta l res tra in t he re is a pe r se an ti tru st vi ol at io n. Co mpa re Leeg in Cr ea ti ve

Lea th er Pro ds
., In c. v. PSKS, Inc.

, 55 1 U.S. 87 7, 88 6, 88 8 (2 00 7) (“ Res tra in ts th at

are pe r s e un la wfu l i nc lu de ho riz on ta l ag reem en ts am on g c om pe ti to rs to fix pr ic es

.

. . . . Our rece nt cas es fo rm ul at e an t i t ru st pr in ci pl es in acco rd an ce wit h th e

ap pr eci at ed di ffer en ce s i n eco no m ic effe ct be twee n ve rti cal an d ho riz on ta l

ag reem en ts .”), wi th Bus in es s El ecs

. Co rp

. v. Sha rp El

ecs

. Co rp

. , 48 5 U.S. 71 7, 73 5-

36 (1 98 8 ) ( “[A ] v ert ic al res tra in t is no t il le ga l pe r se un le ss it in cl ud es so m e

ag reem en t on pr ic e or pr ic e le ve ls .”). Se e P. Areed a & H. Ho ve nk amp, Anti trus t

La w : An Ana ly si s of Anti trus t Prin ci pl es an d Thei r Appl ic at io n, ¶ 32 0c (1 ) (4 th

ed

. 20 16 ) (n ot in g th at ap pl ic at io n of th e co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n do ct rin e in th e an ti tru st

-1 1-co nt ex t de pe nd s on th e na tu re of th e vi ol at io n an d whe th er it i n v o l v e s a “ cart el

,

ve rti cal ag reem en t or refu sa l to de al

, m on op ol iz at io n, or m erg er”) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. As a pe r se vi ol at io n, th e ho riz on ta l res tra in t ha s “ m an ife st ly an ti co m pe ti ti ve effe ct s,

an d la ck [s ]

. . . an y red eem in g vi rtu e.” Leeg in

, 55 1 U.S. at 88 6 (ci ta ti on an d in te rn al

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

. Defen da nt s’ ho riz on ta l pr ic e-fi xi ng ag reem en t ga ve th em

“ un la wfu ll y acq ui red m ark et po wer to ch arg e an el ev at ed pr ic e.” Wh ole sal e G roc er y , 75 2 F.3 d at 73 6. Each ti m e Defen da nt s us e d t h a t po wer ( i.e.

, each sa le ), th ey

co m m it te d an ov ert a c t

, i n f

l i ct in g ne w an d accu m

ul at in g in jury. Se e id

. Se e al so

Kl ehr , 52 1 U.S. at 18 9.

Thi s cas e al so is di st in gu is ha bl e fro m Mid wes te rn Mac hi ne ry Co

., In c. v.

No rt h w e s t Air li ne s, In c. , 39 2 F.3 d 26 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ), an ot he r cas e on whi ch

Defen da nt s rel y

. Mid

wes te rn Mac hi ne ry in vo lv ed a m erg er cl ai m b ro ug ht un de r

Sect io n 7 of th e Cl ay to n A c t

. Th e r e, th is co ur t di st in gu is he d be twee n m erg er an d

co ns pi racy case s:

Unl ik e a co ns pi rac y o r t he m ai nt ai ni ng of a m on op ol y , a m erg er is a di sc ret e act

, no t an o ng oi ng sc he m e. A co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n th eo ry ba se d on ov ert act s th at fu rth er th e ob jecti ve s of an an ti tru st co ns pi racy in vi ol at io n of § 1 of th e Sh e r man A ct or th at are de si gn ed to pr om ot e

a m on op ol y in vi ol at io n of § 2 of th at act can no t ap pl y to m erg ers un de r § 7 of t he Cla y to n Act

.

Mi dw es te rn Ma ch.

, 39 2 F.3 d at 27 1. Mid wes te rn Mac hi ne ry di d no t an no un ce a ru le

fo r pr ic e-fi xi ng co ns pi raci es

. To th e co n t r a r y, th e op in io n ex pr es sl y di sa vo ws an y

m od ifi cat io n to th e Kl eh r co n ti nu in g vi ol at io n do ct rin e as ap pl ie d in pr ic e-fi xi ng

co ns pi raci es

. Id

. at 26 9 (“ Midw es te rn , how ev er, ci te s no ap pe ll at e de ci si on s ap pl y in g [th e co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n] pr in ci pl e to § 7 cl ai m s. Rat he r, it at te m pt s to an al og iz e th is

cas e to ot he r area s of an ti tru st la w whe re su ch a th eo ry ha s in fact be en reco gn iz ed .”).

Fi na ll y , Defen da nt s co nt en d th e Kl eh r ru le en co ur ag e s p l a i n t iff s to sl eep on

th ei r rig ht s. The Su pr em e Co ur t reject s th is co nt en ti on as irr el ev an t: “ [E]ach sa le to

-1 2-th e pl ai nt iff st art s th e st at ut or y p e r io d ru nn in g ag ai n reg ard le ss of th e pl ai nt iff ’s

kn owl ed ge of th e al le ge d il le ga li ty at m uc h earl ie r ti m es .” Se e Kl ehr

, 52 1 U.S. at 18 9
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Se e al so Ha no ver S

h o e , 3 9 2 U.S. at 50 2 n.1 5
(n ot in g, i n t he cas e of a co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n un de r th e Sh erm an Act, “ Alt ho ug h
[p la in ti ff] co ul d ha ve su ed in 19 12 fo r th e in jury th en be in g in fli ct ed

, it was eq ua ll y

en ti tl ed to su e in 19 55 ”). At an y rat e, th e Kl eh r ru le do es no t di sc ou rag e ti m el y fil ed

su it s be cau se a “ pl ai nt iff can no t us e an in de pe nd en t, ne w pr ed ic at e act as a bo ot st rap

to reco ve r fo r i n

ju r i e s cau se d by o th er earl ie r pr ed ic at e act s th at to ok pl ace ou ts id e

th e li m it at io ns pe rio d.” Kl ehr

, 52 1 U.S. at 19 0. In st ead

, th e ru le pr ev en ts co m pa ni es

f ro m “ ag ree[ in g] to di vi de m ark et s fo r th e pu rp os e of rai si ng pr ic es , wait [in g] f o u r

y ears to rai se pr ic es , th en r e ap [in g] th e pr of it s of th ei r il le ga l ag reem en t wit h

im pu ni ty b ecau se an y an ti tru st cl ai m s wou ld be ti m e ba rred .” Who le sa le Gro cer y , 75 2 F .3d at 7 36

.

Kl eh r’ s de fin it io n of a co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n u n d e r an ti tru st la w is co ns is te nt

wit h Su pr em e Co ur t pr eced en t an d th e le ad in g an ti tru st tre at is e an d ha s be en ap pl ie d
by th is co ur t to a pr ic e-fi xi ng co ns pi racy. It co nt ro ls he re. Se e id

. (“ The ti m el in es s

qu es ti on in th is cas e is co nt ro ll ed by Kl eh r .”). Und er Kl eh r , “ea c h s a l e t o 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 run ni ng ag ai n.”

Kl ehr , 52 1 U.S. at 18 9.

B.

The ot he r is su e i s w h e th er th e am en de d 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 s t a t u t e o f li m it at io ns

. Und er Kl eh r , Pl ai nt iff s m us t al le ge : (1 ) “ a pr ic e-fi xi ng co ns pi racy;” (2 ) “ th at br in gs ab ou t a se rie s

of un la wfu ll y h i g h p r i c ed sa le s” du rin g th e cl as s pe rio d; an d (3 ) “ sa le [s ] to th e pl ai nt iff [s ]” du rin g th e cl as s pe rio d. Id

. In pa rag rap h 11 1 of th e am en de d co m pl ai nt

, Pl ai nt iff s al le ge all th ree n eces sa ry ele m en ts :

-1 3-Pl ai nt iff s pu rch as ed Fi ll ed Pro pa ne Exc ha ng e Tan ks fro m B l ue Rh in o

or Am eri Gas on m

ul ti pl e oc cas io ns d u rin g th e Cl as s Peri od

. On each

oc cas io n, Pl ai nt iff

s pu rch as ed Fi ll ed Pro pa ne Exc ha ng e Tan ks

co nt ai ni ng on ly 15 po un ds of pr op an e, pu rs ua nt to th e co ns pi racy, b ut

so ld at th e pr ic e th ey

wou ld ha ve be en ch arg ed fo r 17 -p ou nd ta nk s bu t fo r th e co ns pi racy. As Defen da nt s ke pt pri ces co ns ta nt de sp it e th e fi ll
le ve l re du ct io n, t hi s amoun te d t o a n e ffec ti ve pri ce i nc reas e o f 13 %.

Am end ed Co m pl ai nt

, at ¶1 11

. St an di ng al on e, th is “ fo rm ul ai c re c i t a ti on of th e

el em en ts of a cau se of act io n” m ay be in su ffi ci en t. Two m bl y , 55 0 U.S. at 55 5. W hi le

th e co m pl ai nt “ do es no t ne ed de ta il ed fact ua l al le ga ti on s,” it do es req ui re “ m or e th an

la be ls an d co nc lu si on s.” Id

. Rat he r, th e “ [f]actu al al le ga ti on s m us t be en ou gh to rai se

a ri gh t t o re li ef ab ov e th e sp ecu la ti ve lev el .” Id

.

Defen da nt s arg ue th at th e am en d e d c o mpla in t fai ls to al le ge a pr ic e-fi xi ng

co ns pi racy be cau se it do es no t “ pl au si bl y su gg es t th at ei th er Defen da nt ’s de ci si on to

red uc e fil l lev el s was the res ul t of an agree m en t.” The d is tri ct co ur t d id no t ru le on

th is is su e. Rat he r, it as su m ed th e ex is te nc e of an ag reem en t: “ Unl ik e in W ho le sa le

Gro cer y Pro du ct

s , th e an ti co m

pe ti ti ve n a t u r e of Defen da nt s’ ag reem en t was no t

rev ea l e d y ears la te r du rin g th e li m it at io ns pe rio d; ” “ Pl ai nt iff s m ak e no al le ga ti on s

th at Defen da nt s ev er m ad e an y ch an ge s or m od ifi cat io ns to th e i r a g r e e m en t du rin g

th e li m it at io ns pe rio d; ” an d “ [C]om m un ic at io ns were m ere reaf fir m at io ns of th e pr io r

ag reem en t.”

The al le ga ti on s of a pr ic e-fi xi ng co ns pi racy are su ffi ci en t. Pl ai nt iff s pl ead th at

Defen da nt s “ co ns pi red an d act ed in co nc ert to el im in at e co m pe ti ti on by red uc in g th e

am ou nt of pr op an e th ey wou ld pu t in th ei r ta nk s, th ereb y rai si ng th e pe r-p ou nd pr ic e

of pr op an e acro ss th e co un try as well as by di v i d i n g th e m ark et fo r Fi ll ed Pro pa ne

Exc ha ng e Tan ks in vi ol at io n o f fed eral an ti tru st law.” Am end ed Co m pl ai nt , a t ¶1

. Eve n m or e sp eci fic al ly, th ey pl ead th at “ B l u e Rh in o’s Pres id en t, Tod Bro wn, an d

Am eri Gas ’s Dire ct or of Nati on al Acco un ts

, Ken Ja ni sh

, ex ch an ge d se ve n ph on e cal ls

on Ju ne 18 an d 19

, 20 08

, du rin g whi ch Am eri Gas ag reed th at if Bl ue Rh in o red uc ed

-1 4-it s fil l le ve ls to 15 po un ds pe r ta nk

, Am eri Gas wou ld fo ll ow su it .” Id

. at ¶9

. Defen da nt s la te r “ en ga g e d in do zen s of cal ls

, em ai ls

, an d in -p ers on m eet in gs to

c o o r d in at e a un ifi ed fro nt th at wou ld le av e th e la rg es t ret ai le rs an d th en th e en ti re

in du st ry wit h no ch oi ce bu t to acce pt th ei r d e man d s .” Id

. at ¶8

. “ [N]o la te r th an

sp rin g 20 08 ,” D e f

e n d a n t s “redu ced th ei r fil l le ve ls fro m 17 po un ds pe r ta nk to 15

po un ds pe r ta nk whi le m ai nt ai ni ng th e sa m e pr ic e pe r ‘full ’ ta nk

, fo r th e pu rp os e of

in crea si ng th ei r m arg in s on th e sa le of pr op an e ex ch an ge ta nk s

. ” I d

. a t ¶7

. “ Thi s

co ll us io n effe c t i v e l y rai se d th e pr ic es ch arg ed to Pl ai nt iff s by m or e th an 13 % pe r

po un d.” Id

.

“ [S]ho win g pa ral le l co nd uc t or in te rd ep en de nc e, wit ho ut m or e,” “ fal ls sh or t of

co nc lu si ve ly es ta bl is h[ in g] ag reem en t or

. . . it se lf co ns ti tu t[i ng ] a Sh erm an Act

of fen se .” Two m bl

y , 55 0 U.S. at 55 3- 54 (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d)

. Howev er, “ [a]n al le ga ti on of pa ral le l co nd uc t

. . . ge ts th e co m pl ai nt

cl os e to st at in g a cl ai m .” Id

. at 55 7. W it h “ fu rth er fact ua l en ha nc em en t,” pl ai nt iff s

can “ nu dg e[] th ei r cl ai m s ac ro ss th e li ne fro m co nc ei va bl e to pl au si bl e.” Id

. at 55 7,

57 0. The al le ga ti on s he re st at e en ou gh fact ua l en ha nc em en ts to sh ow m or e th an

pa r a l l e l co nd uc t. Pl ai nt iff s pl ead fact s sh owi ng Defen da nt s act ed co ll us iv el y ,
p u r s u an t to a co ll ect iv e in te res t to red uc e th e am ou nt of pr op an e in each ta n k s o l d

, whi le m ai nt ai ni ng th e pr ic e. Se e Am end ed Co m pl ai nt

, at ¶¶1

, 7- 11

, 66

, 13 4. The se

al le ga ti on s s uf

fic ie nt ly alle ge a pr ic e-fi xi ng co ns pi racy.

Nex t, Pl ai nt iff

s m us t al le ge th e co ns pi racy “ br in gs ab ou t a se rie s of un la wfu ll y

hi gh pr ic ed sa le s” du rin g th e cl as s pe rio d. In th ei r m ot io n to di sm is s , D e f e n da nt s

arg ue Pl ai nt iff

s fai l to al le ge a co nt in ui ng co ns pi racy, “ in vo k[ in g] co nt in ui ng
vi ol at io ns in na m e on ly an d of fer[ in g] no fact ua l al le ga ti on s in di cat in g an y co nt in ue d

co nd uc t wit hi n th e li m it at io ns pe rio d.” They ass ert th at Pla in ti ffs ’ “ ba re as se rti on s

th at th e co nd uc t at is su e co nt in ue d ‘un ti l at lea st lat e 2 01 0,’ are co nc lu so ry an d fa il

to m eet th e Two mbl

y st an da rd of p la us ib il it y .”

-1 5-The al le ga ti on s th at th e co ns pi racy co nt in ue d in to th e cl as s pe ri o d are

su ffi ci en t. Pl ai nt iff

s pl ead th at “ Defen da nt s’ an ti co m pe ti ti ve co nd uc t la st ed at le as t

fro m Ju ly 21

, 20 08 th ro ug h Ja nu ary 9, 20 15 ” an d “ as a r es ul t of th e[i r]

an ti co m pe ti ti ve co nd uc t

. . . Defen da nt s ha ve ch arg ed Pl ai nt iff s an d m em

be rs of th e

pr op os ed Cl as s su pr aco m pe ti ti ve pr ic es fo r Fi ll ed Pro pa ne Exc ha ng e Tan ks

th ro ug ho ut th e Cl as s Peri od .” Am end ed Co m pl ai nt

, at ¶¶1 20 -2 1. Se e id

. at ¶¶1 22

- 23

. Des pi te th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t wit h in di rect pu rch as ers in 20 10

, th ey pl ead

th at “ Defen da nt s m ai nt a i n e d th ei r il le ga ll y ag reed -u po n fil l le ve ls rat he r th an

res um in g co m

pe ti ti on , pr es erv in g th e un la wfu ll y in fla te d pr ic es th at th ei r co ns pi racy

ha d pro du ced .” Id

. at ¶1 08

. Se e id

. at ¶1 24

. Pl ai nt iff

s als o pl ead th at “ [t]hr ou gh at

le as t th e en d of 20 10

, Defen da nt s reg ul arl y co m m un ic at ed to as su re co m

pl ia nc e wit h

th e co ns pi racy,” “ m on it or [in g] th e m ark et to en su re th at ne it he r ch eat ed on th e i r

an ti co m pe ti ti ve ag reem en t by of feri ng a pr ic e red uc ti on or c o mp et in g fo r on e

an ot he r’s cu st om ers or ge og rap hi c m ark et s.” Id

. at ¶9 2. Se e id

. at ¶1 25

. Mo re

sp eci fic al ly, th ey pl ead th at in 20 08

, Am eri Gas ’s Dire ct or of Nati on al Acco un ts Ken

Ja ni sh to ld Bl ue Rh in o’s Pres id en t Tod Bro wn th at “ it wou ld fo ll ow clo se ly be hi nd

Bl ue Rh in o if it su cces sf

ul ly im pl em en te d it s fil l red uc ti on , an d th at it wou ld no t se ll

bo th 1 5

- p o u nd an d 17 -p ou nd ta nk s” an d “ Ja ni sh ha d si m il ar co nv ers at io ns wit h

em pl oyees of Bl ue Rh in o on nu m ero us oc cas io ns fro m at le as t as earl y as 20 07 un ti l

at le as t la te 20 10 .” Id

. at ¶6 0. Add it io na ll y , “ du rin g cal ls an d m eet i n g s wit h

Am eri Gas ex ecu ti ve s oc cu rri ng at le as t as la te as 20 10

, Ja ni sh rep eat ed ly di sm is se d

co nc ern s th at Bl ue Rh in o m ig ht un de rcu t Am eri Gas on pr ic e or fil l le ve ls wit h wor ds

to th e effe ct of

, ‘I ta lk ed to Bl ue Rh in o, an d th at ’s no t go in g to ha pp en .’ ” Id

. at ¶1 3.

Se e id

. at ¶6 2.

So m e of th es e al le ga ti on s are “ na ke d as se rti on [ s ] d e v o i d of fu rth er fact ua l

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 m bl y , 55 0 U.S. at 55 5. Se e,

e.g

. , Am end

ed Co m pl ai nt

, at ¶¶1 20

, 12 5. Oth ers , ho wev er, 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 “ fact ua l co nt e n t” to su pp or t “ th e reas on ab le

-1 6-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.” Iq ba l

, 55 6 U.S. at

67 8

. S e e
, e.g

. , Am end

ed Co m pl ai nt

, at ¶¶1 3, 60

, 92

. Defen da nt s arg ue th es e

al le ga ti on s are “ im

pe rm is si bl y va gu e a n d c on cl us or y .” Bu t Pl ai nt iff s “ ne ed no t

pr ov id e sp eci

fi c fa ct s in su pp or t of th ei r al le ga ti on s.” Scha af v. Res id ent ia l Fund in g

Co rp

. , 51 7 F.3 d 54 4, 54 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 8 ) ( e mph as is ad de d)

, ci ti ng Er ic ks on v.

Par du s , 55 1 U.S. 89

, 93 (2 00 7) (p er cu ria m ). Rat he r, t h e y ne ed on ly pr ov id e

“ su ffi ci en t fact ua l in fo rm at io n to pr ov id e th e ‘gro un ds ’ on whi ch th e cl ai m res ts

, an d

to rai se a rig ht to rel ie f ab ov e a sp ecu la ti ve le ve l.” Id

. , qu ot in g Two m bl

y , 55 0 U.S.

at 55 5, 55 5 n. 3

. “[C ]o ns tru [in g] t he co m pl ai nt li be ral ly i n th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le

to ” Pl ai nt iff

s, Eck er t v. Tit

an Tir e Co rp

. , 51 4 F

. 3 d 8 0 1

, 80 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), th es e

al le ga ti on s “ pl au si bl y gi ve ris e to an en ti tl em en t t o re li ef.” Iq ba l

, 55 6 U.S. at 67 9.

Acco rd in g to Defen da nt s, Pl ai nt iff s’ al le ga ti on th at “ th e pr op an e co n s p i r a cy

su ccee de d,” Am end

ed Co m pl ai nt

, a t ¶ 1 0

, m ad e th e m ai nt en an ce of fil l le ve ls an d

pr ic es m ere “ u n a b at ed in ert ia l co ns eq ue nc es ” an d no t ov ert act s co nt in ui ng th e

co ns pi racy. Bu t th e qu es ti on he re is no t whe th er th e am en de d co m pl ai nt al le ge s ot he r

ov ert act s in ad di ti on to sa le s to th e P l a i n t i f f s; th e is su e is whe th er th e am en de d

co m pl ai nt a l l eg es th at th e co ns pi racy co nt in ue d whe n th e sa le s to ok pl ace. If so ,

un de r Kl eh r , “ea c h s a l e t o th e pl ai nt iff ,” is an ov ert act th at res ta rts th e st at ut e of

li m it at io ns

. Kl eh r , 52 1 U.S. at 18 9. Se e Unit ed St at es v. So co ny-V

ac uum Oil Co

. , 31 0 U.S. 15 0, 25 3 (1 94 0) (“ [T]he co ns pi racy co nt em pl at ed an d em

br aced

, at le as t by

c l e ar im pl ic at io n, sa le s to job be rs an d co ns um ers in th e Mi d- W es te rn area at t h e

en ha nc ed pr ic es

. The m ak i n g o f th os e sa le s su pp li ed pa rt of th e ‘con ti nu ou s

co op erat io n’ ne ces sa ry

to ke ep th e co ns pi racy ali ve .”).

In an y ev en t, th is co ur t ha s ne ve r ap pl ie d th e “ un ab at ed in ert ia l co ns eq ue nc es ”

te st to a ho riz on ta l pr ic e-fi xi ng co ns pi racy, le t al on e on e whe re Pl ai nt iff s al le ge th at

“ sa le s pu rs ua nt to th e co ns pi racy co nt in ue d th ro ug ho ut th e Cl as s Peri od ,” an 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 .” Am end ed Co m pl ai nt

, at ¶¶ 12 3, 10 9.

-1 7-Se e, e.g

. , Co nco rd Bo at

, 20 7 F.3 d at 10 52 (“ Co nt in ui ng vi ol at io ns typic al ly ari se in

th e co nt ex t of Sh erm an Act

. . . c l a i ms w h e r e m ul ti pl e de fen da nt s are al le ge d to be

pa rt of an on go in g c on sp ira cy .”). In c on te xt , Defen da nt s’ c on sp ira cy “ su ccee de d”

in “ fo rc[i ng ] W al m art an d ot he r la rg e ret ai le rs to acce pt th e fil l red uc ti on ” an d rai si ng

th e “ who le sa le pr ic es at whi ch [th ey ] so ld pr op an e in Fi ll ed Pro pa ne Exc ha ng e Tan ks

to ret ai le rs th ro ug ho ut th e Uni te d St at es .” Am end ed Co m pl ai nt

, at ¶1 0. Thi s su cces s
di d no t en d th e co ns pi racy, bu t rat he r was a pr eco nd it io n to th e pr ic e-fi xi ng sc he m e

Pl ai nt iff s al le ge co nt in ue d i nt o t he cla ss pe rio d.

Fi na ll y , th e am en de d co m pl ai nt m us t al le ge “ sa le [s ] to th e pl ai nt iff [s ]” du rin g

th e cl as s pe rio d. Defen da nt s do n o t d i s p u t e th e su ffi ci en cy of th es e al le ga ti on s:
Si nc e 20 08 an d co nt in ui ng th ro ug h th e c la ss pe rio d, Pl ai nt iff s “ pu rch as ed Fi ll ed

Pro pa ne Exc ha ng e Tan ks fro m on e or m or e of th e Defen da nt s an d

. . . pa id in fla te d

pe r-p ou nd pr ic es du e to Defen da nt s’ un la wfu l co ns pi racy.” Am end ed Co m pl ai nt

, at
¶¶1 8- 21

.

The am en de d co m

pl ai nt al le ge s “ su ffi ci en t fact ua l m at te r, acc e p t e d as tru e,”

to sh ow a co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n to res ta rt th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns , an d, th eref or e, “ to

st at e a cl ai m to rel ie f th at is pl au si bl e on i t s f a c e

. ” Iq ba l , 5 56 U.S. a t 67 8, qu ot in g

Two m bl y , 55 0 U.S. a t 5 7 0

. B e c au se it is no t “ cl ear fro m th e face of th e co m pl ai nt

t h a t th e act io n is ba rred by th e ap pl ic ab le li m it at io ns pe rio d,” V ar ner , 37 1 F.3 d a t

10 16 , th e d is tri ct co ur t er red in gra nt in g t he m ot io n t o d is m is s.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s re ve rs ed

.

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e, wit h wh om W OLLMAN and LOKEN, Cir cu it Ju dg es , joi n, d is se nt in g, an d wi th who m KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg e, joi ns Part s I.B an d

II o f th e d is se nt

.

-1 8-Tod ay ’s op in io n in co rrec tl y in te rp ret s Su pr em e Co ur t pr eced en t, fai ls to ho ld

th e pl ai nt iff

s ’ co m pl ai nt to th e pl au si bi li ty st an da rd of Twom bl y an d Iq ba l, an d
ig no res th e pu rp os es of th e an ti tru st st at u t e o f l i mi ta ti on s. Fo r th es e reas on s, I

res pe ct fu ll y

di ss en t.

I.

Fi rs t, th e op in io n in te rp ret s th e an ti tru st di sc us si on in Kleh r co m pl et el y
di vo rced fro m th e fact s an d is su es co nf ro nt in g th e Su pr em e Co ur t in th at cas e. As a

res ul t, th e m ajor it y fai ls to ap pl y an ti tru st la w co rrec tl y to th e cas e be fo re us

. Had th e

m ajor it y co ns id ered Kleh r in co nt ex t, it wou ld ha ve fo un d th at pl ai nt iff s m us t sh ow

a li ve , o n g o in g co ns pi racy wit hi n th e li m it at io ns pe rio d to su rv iv e a m ot io n to

di sm is s.

A.

Kleh r v. A.O. Sm it h Co rp . wa s a RICO cas e th at reject e d t h e Thi rd Ci rcu it ’s

“ la st pr ed ic at e ru le ” fo r to ll in g cl ai m s br ou gh t un de r th at st at ut e. 52 1 U.S. 17 9, 18 7
(1 99 7)

. Bec au se “ Co ng res s co ns ci ou sl y pa tt ern ed ci vi l RICO aft er th e Cl ay to n Act,”

th e Su pr em e Co ur t em

pl oyed a “ Cl ay to n Act a n al og y ” to ex pl ai n why th e Thi rd

Ci rcu it ha d e rred . Id. at 18 9 (e m ph as is ad de d) . In i ts att em pt to ex pl ai n th e to ll in g

req ui rem en ts of RICO, the Co ur t offe red th e fo ll owi ng res ta te m en t of an ti tru st la w:

Ant it ru st la w pr ov id es th at

, in th e cas e of a “ co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n,” sa y ,

a pr ic e-fi xi ng co ns pi racy t h at br in gs ab ou t a se rie s of un la wfu ll y hi gh

pr ic ed sa le s ov er a pe rio d of y ears , “ each o v e r t a c t t ha t is pa rt of th e
vi ol at io n an d th at in

jure s th e pl a i n t i ff,” e.g
., ea ch sa le to th e pl ai nt if f

,

“ st art s t he st at ut or y

pe rio d ru nn in g a ga in

. . . .”

-1 9-Id

. (em

ph as is ad de d) (q uo ti ng 2 Ph il li p E. Areed a & Herb ert Hov en ka m p, Ant it ru st

Law ¶ 3 38 b, at 14 5 (r ev . ed. 1 99 5) ).

Kleh r was a RI C O c as e, no t an an ti tru st cas e. The pa rti es in Kleh r li ti ga te d

RICO is su es , no t an ti tru st is su es

. The Su pr em e Co ur t’s sh or t di sc us si on of an ti tru st

la w se rv ed on ly to il lu m in at e th e di sc us si on of to ll in g RICO cl ai m s. The Co ur t was 3

ne it he r an no un ci ng so m e ne w s t a n d a r d in an ti tru st la w n or red efi ni ng a co nt in ui ng
vi ol at io n. It si m

pl y us ed est ab li sh ed pri nc ip le s o f an ti tru st la w t o “ he lp

. . . m ak e[]

cl ear” th e RIC O is su e. Id

.

W it h th e ex cerp te d la ng ua ge fro m Kleh r in it s pr op er co nt e x t

, w e can be tt er

un de rs ta nd th e an ti tru st pr in ci pl es it es po us e s

. F o r i ts an al og y , t he Su pr em e Co ur t

tu rn ed to th e le ad in g tre at is e on th e su bjec t— Ar eed a an d Hov en ka m p’s Ant it ru st

Law. The ori gi na l q uo te fro m Areed a rea ds , “ In th e cas e of a co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n,
each ov ert act th at is pa rt of th e vi ol at io n an d th at i n ju r es th e pl ai nt iff st art s th e

st at ut or y pe rio d ru nn in g ag ai n.” 2 Areed a & Hov en ka m p, su pr a, at 14 5. Areed a sa y s

no th in g abo ut “ each sa le to th e pl ai nt iff ” co ns ti tu ti ng an ov ert act at th is po in t. Bu t

Areed a do es reac h th e is su e jus t a few se nt en ces la te r whe re it ex pl ai ns th at

, “ so lo ng

as an il le ga l pr ic e-f

ix in g co ns pi ra cy wa s al iv e , each sa le at th e fix ed pr ic e [s ta rte d th e

fo ur -y ear st at ut e of li m it at io n an ew].” Id

. (em ph as is ad de d) (ci ti ng Han ov er Sh oe v.
Uni te d Sh oe Mac h. Co rp ., 39 2 U.S. 48 1, 50 2 n.1 5 (1 96 8) ). The refo re each sa le to th e pl ai nt iff can st art th e st at ut or y pe rio d ru nn in g ag ai n so lo ng as an il le ga l pr ic e-fi xi ng

co ns pi racy is al iv e an d o ng oi ng

.

Ju dg e Po sn er ha s de sc rib ed di ct a as “ an y st at em en t m ad e by a co ur t fo r us e in 3

arg um en t, il lu st rat io n, an al og y or su gg es ti on

. It is a r e mar k

, an as id e, co nc ern in g

so m e ru le of la w or le ga l pr op os it io n th at is no t ne ces sa ril y es se nt ia l to th e de ci si on

an d la ck s th e au th or it y of ad jud ic at io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Crawl ey , 83 7 F.2 d 29 1, 29 2 (7 th Ci r. 19 88 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Bec au se I be li ev e th e di sc us si on of an ti tru st in Kleh r fal ls un de r th e cat eg or y of di ct a, I do no t be li ev e it de se rv es th e lo fty po si ti on of au th or it y affo rd ed to it by th e m ajor it y ’s op in io n. Bu t I wil l pr oc eed
in m y an al y si s as if t he lan gu ag e is bi nd in g a ut ho rit y on us

.

-2 0-B.

Kleh r is fu ll y co ns on an t wit h th is in te rp ret at io n. The an ti tru st an al og y

pr es um es th at “ a pr ic e-fi xi ng co ns pi racy th at br in gs ab ou t a se rie s of un la wfu ll y hi gh

pr ic ed sa le s o v e r a pe rio d of y ears ” co nt in ue s to ex is t. Kleh r, 52 1 U.S. at 18 9.

Fu rth er, t he ex cerp te d l an gu ag e st at es th at “ each sal e to th e pl ai nt iff ” m us t b e “ pa rt

of th e vi ol at io n.” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. So th e pl ai nt iff s m us t sh ow

th at th e s a l e s o c c u r r ed as a res ul t of a li ve , on go in g co ns pi racy. See Mi dwe st ern

M a c h

. C o

. v

. Nw. Airl in es , In c., 39 2 F.3 d 26 5, 26 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (“ The typic al

an ti tru st co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n oc cu rs i n a p ric e-fi xi ng co ns pi racy

. . . whe n

co ns pi rat or s co nt in ue to m eet to fin e-t un e th ei r cart el a gr eem en t.”)

. Thi s

i n te rp ret at io n in no way “ li m it [s ] Su pr em e Co ur t op in io ns pr eci se ly to th e fact s o f

each cas e.” See Jo ne s v. St . P au l Co s., 49 5 F.3 d 8 8 8

, 8 9 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (in te rn al

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

. In st ead

, it gi ve s m ean in g to an is ol at ed ex cerp t by

co ns id eri ng th e b ro ad er fa ct ua l co nt ex t fr om whi ch th e ex cerp t ca m e.

The ot he r two Su pr em e Co ur t cas e s c i t e d in th e m ajor it y op in io n— Han ov er
Sh oe an d Zen it h Rad io —al so su pp or t th e pr op os it io n th at pl ai nt iff s m us t m ak e a pl au si bl e sh owi ng of a li ve , on go in g co ns pi racy. In Han ov er Sh oe , Han ov er al le ge d

“ th at Uni te d’s pr act ic e of le as in g an d re f u s i n g to se ll it s m or e co m pl ic at ed an d

im po rta nt sh oe m ach in ery” vi ol at ed an ti tru st la w. 39 2 U.S. at 48 3. In i t s d e f e n s e , Uni t e d a r g ue d th at “ be cau se th e earl ie st im pa ct on Han ov er of Uni te d’s le as e on ly

po li cy oc cu rred in 19 12

, Han ov er’s cau se of act io n aro se du rin g th at y ear an d is no w
b a rred by th e

. . . st at ut e of li m it at io ns .” Id

. at 50 2 n.1 5. The Co ur t r e je c t e d t h i s

arg um en t be cau se Uni te d’s co nd uc t was a co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n. Id

. Im po rta nt ly, th e

un de rlyin g co ns pi rat or ia l a c t iv it y (Un it ed ’s le as e-o nl y po li cy ) was on go in g fro m

19 12 th ro ug h 19 55

. Id

. Thi s co nt in ue d co ns pi rat or ia l act iv it y is wha t ren de red each

le as e—a nd r e f

us al to se ll —an ov ert act th at res ta rte d th e li m it at io ns pe rio d. See 2

Areed a & Hov en ka m

p, su pr a, at 14 5. Ju st as wit h Han ov er Sh oe , so to o wit h Zen it h

Rad io

. Zen it h su ed Hazel ti ne Res earc h ov er Hazel ti ne ’s “ pa rti ci pa ti on i n p a t e nt

-2 1-p oo ls ” th at vi ol at ed th e Sh erm an Act. Zen it h Rad io Co rp

. v. Hazel ti ne R e s e a r c h

,

In c., 40 1 U.S. 32 1, 32 3 (1 97 1)

. Zen it h so ug ht to reco ve r da m ag es su ffer ed du rin g th e

li m it at io ns pe rio d, ev en th ou gh Hazel ti ne en te red th e pa t e n t po ol s lo ng be fo re th e

li m it at io ns pe rio d. Id

. at 33 8. The Co ur t h e l d t h a t Zen it h co ul d reco ve r da m ag es ,

no ti ng th at Hazel ti ne was en ga gi ng in a “ co nti nuin g co ns pi ra cy to vi ol at e th e an ti tru st

l a w s ,” an d so each act ha rm fu l to Zen it h res ta rte d th e li m it at io ns pe rio d

. I d

. (em ph as is ad de d)

. In Kleh r, Han ov er S h oe , an d Zen it h Rad io

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t

un de rs to od th at a ne ces sa ry req ui rem en t for a co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n of ant it ru st la ws
is th e ex is te nc e of a li ve , on go in g co ns pi racy. W it ho ut su ch a req ui rem en t, pl ai nt iff s

co ul d su e m an y y ears aft er an an ti tru st vi ol at i o n oc cu rred an d se ek da m ag es fo r

su bs eq ue nt sal es wit ho ut tying th e p rio r an ti tru st vi ol at io n t o t he su bs eq ue nt sal es

.

II.

Acco rd in gl y , th e pl ai nt iff s m us t su ffi ci en tl y al le ge th at th e de fend ants en ga ge d

in a li ve , on go in g co ns pi racy so m et im e in th e li m it at io ns pe rio d to su rv iv e a m ot io n

to di sm is s. The pl ai nt iff s can acco m

pl is h th is ta sk by al le g i n g “ 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 i e f t h a t i s p l au si bl e on it s face .’ ”

Ash cro ft v. Iq ba l, 55 6 U.S. 66 2, 67 8 (2 00 9) (q uo ti ng Bel l Atl

. Co rp

. v. Twom bl y , 55 0

U.S. 54 4, 57 0 (2 00 7) ). The pl au si bi li ty st an da rd de m an ds “ 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 l e i n f e r en ce th at th e de fen da nt is li ab le fo r th e

m is c o n d u c t a ll eg ed .” Id

. (ci ti ng Twom bl y , 55 0 U.S. at 55 6)

. The pl ai nt iff s ha ve

fai le d to m ak e a pl au si bl e cl ai m if al l th ey of fer are “l a b e l s an d co nc lu si on s,” “ 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,” o r “n a k ed as se rti on [s ]”

de vo id of “ fu rth er fa ct ua l en ha nc em en t.” Two m bl y , 55 0 U.S. at 55 5- 57

.

In de te rm in in g whe th er th e pl ai nt iff s ha ve pl ed a pl au si bl e cau se of act io n, th e

m ajor it y rel ie s h eav il y

on pa rag rap h 1 11 of t he am en de d c om pl ai nt :

P l ai nt iff s pu rch as ed Fi ll ed Pro pa ne Exc ha ng e Tan ks fro m Bl ue Rh i n o

or Am eri Gas on m

ul ti pl e oc cas io ns d u r in g th e Cl as s Peri od

. On each

-2 2-oc cas io n, Pl ai nt iff s pu rch as ed Fi ll ed Pro pa ne Exc ha ng e Tan ks

co nt ai ni ng on ly 1 5 po un ds of pr op an e, pu rs ua nt to th e co ns pi racy, b ut

so ld at th e pr ic e th ey wou ld ha ve be en ch arg ed for 17 -p ou nd ta nk s bu t fo r th e co ns pi racy. As Defen da nt s ke pt pr ic es co ns ta nt de sp it e th e fi ll
le ve l re du ct io n, t hi s amoun te d t o a n e ffec ti ve pri ce i nc reas e o f 13 %.

Am en de d Co m

pl ai nt ¶ 11 1, ECF N o

. 10 2. The m ajor it y ta ke s th es e as se rti on s,

to ge th er wit h pa rag rap hs 7 th ro ug h 9, whi ch al le ge fact s oc cu rri ng in 20 08

, an d ho ld s

th at th e p la in ti ffs ha ve “ su ffi ci en tl y all eg e[d ] a p ric e-fi xi ng co ns pi racy.”

The m ajor it y ’s ho ld in g fli es in th e face of Twom bl y an d Iq ba l. Para gr ap h 11 1

is

, at be st

, a “ fo rm

ul ai c r e c i t a ti on of th e el em en ts of a cau se of act io n” in su ffi ci en t

u n d er th e pl au si bi li ty s ta nd ard

. See Twom bl y , 5 50 U.S. a t 55 5. And pa rag ra p h s 7

th ro u g h 9 d e a l o nl y wit h fact s fro m 20 08

, well ou ts id e th e li m it at io ns pe rio d. The

m ajor it y op in io n fai ls to di sc us s on e fact ua l al le ga t i o n fro m wit hi n th e li m it at io ns

pe rio d in co nc lu di ng th at th e p la in ti ffs ha ve su ffi ci en tl y al le ge d a co ns pi racy. Thi s
is pe rh ap s no t su rp ris in g, si nc e v i r t u al ly al l of th e am en de d co m pl ai nt co m

pr is es
ei th er fa ct ua l al le ga ti on s fr om be fo re the li m it at io ns pe rio d or nak ed as se rti on s an d

co nc lu si on s. 4

The re is bu t on e po ss ib le ex cep ti on : pa rag rap h 13

, whi ch al le ge s th at “ du rin g 4

cal ls an d m eet in gs wit h Am eri Gas ex ecu ti ve s oc cu rri ng at le as t as la te as 20 10

, Ja ni sh

rep eat ed ly di sm is se d co nc ern s th at Bl ue Rh in o m ig ht un de rcu t Am eri Gas on pr ic e or fil l le ve ls wit h wor ds to th e effe ct of

, ‘I ta lk ed to Bl ue Rh in o, an d th at ’s no t go in g to ha pp en .’ ” Bu t ev en t h i s al le ga ti on fal ls sh or t of th e Twom bl y st an da rd

. The

co m pl ai nt do es no t al le ge whe th er th e co nv ers at io ns be twee n Am eri Gas an d Bl ue Rh in o oc cu rred du rin g th e li m it at io ns pe rio d, on ly th at co m m en ts fro m th os e al le ge d

co nv ers at io ns were pu rp or te dl y sh ared in a la te r ret el li ng of th e co nv ers at io ns

. And
th e ret el li ng can on ly rep or t on “ wor ds to th e ef fe ct of ” wha te ve r was sa id

. The da te s of th e co nv ers at io ns are le ft to th e wid es t ran ge of ti m e, th ou gh cu rio us ly la te en ou gh

to jus t reac h in to th e li m it at io ns pe rio d. To be su re, th e co m pl ai nt na m es o n e in di vi du al em

pl oyed b y Am eri Gas . But na ke d as se rti on s o f m is co nd uc t, co m bi ne d
wit h a na m e di sc ov ered fro m a co m pa ny di rect or y , are no t en ou gh to su rv iv e a m ot io n
to di sm is s u nd er Twombly an d Iq ba l.

-2 3-At or al arg um en t, pl ai nt i f fs ’ co un se l es se nt ia ll y co nc ed ed th at th e pl ai nt iff s

la ck an y fact ua l al le ga ti on s of a li ve , on go in g co ns pi racy du rin g t h e li m it at io ns

pe rio d. In res po ns e to a qu es ti on as ki ng whe th er th ere ha ve be en an y ov ert act s to

m ai nt ai n th e co ns pi racy du rin g th e li m it at io ns pe rio d, co un se l c o u l d o nl y id en ti fy

pa rag r a p h 9 2 o f th e co m pl ai nt

. Bu t pa rag rap h 92 si m pl y m ak es na ke d as se rti on s

— de vo id of fact ua l en ha nc em en ts —t ha t th e de fen da nt s “ reg ul arl y co m m un ic at ed ”

an d “ m o n i t o r ed th e m ark et ” to en su re co m pl ia nc e. Pres se d fu rth er ab ou t whe th er pl ai nt iff s ha d al le ge d an on go in g pr ic e-fi xi ng co ns pi racy, pl ai nt iff s’ co un se l di rect ed

th e co ur t to pa rag rap h 11 1— a m ere reci ta ti on of th e el em en ts of th e cau se of act io n.

Afte r a th or ou g h r e vi ew of th e am en de d co m pl ai nt

, I fin d no pl au si bl e

al le ga ti on of a li ve , on go in g co ns pi racy oc cu rri ng wit hi n th e li m it at io ns p e r i o d.

In de e d

, th e on ly fact ua l al le ga ti on s wit hi n th e li m it at io ns pe rio d co nc ern th e fil l

le ve ls of th e pr op an e ta nk s. Tak in g th e fact ua l al l e g a t i o n s a s tru e, th e de fen da nt s

co ns pi red in 20 08 to red uc e th e fil l le ve ls fro m 17 to 15 po un ds

. The fil l le ve ls fo r 5

pr op an e ta nk s so ld by al l de fen da nt s rem ai n at 15 po un ds to da y

. Bu t al le ga ti on s th at

fil l le v e l s r e main at th e sa m e le ve ls can no t su ffi ce. Sh owi ng pa ral le l co nd uc t,

wit ho ut m or e, “ fal ls sh or t of co nc lu si ve ly es ta bl is h[ in g] ag reem en t or

. . . it se lf

co ns ti tu t[i ng ] a Sh erm an Act of fen se .” Id

. at 55 3 (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (in te rn al

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

. “ Eve n co ns ci ou s pa ral le li sm , a co m m on reac ti on of fir m s

in a co nc en tra te d m ark et [th at ] reco gn iz [e] th ei r sh ared eco no m ic in te res ts an d th ei r

in te rd ep en de nc e wit h res pe c t to pr ic e an d ou tp ut de ci si on s[ ,] is no t in it se lf

un la wfu l.” Id

. at 55 3- 54 (fi rs t an d se co nd al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d)

. In th e en d, th ere is a si m pl e qu es ti on be fo re us: Hav e th e pl ai nt iff s

In fact

, th e FTC, who se 20 14 la wsu it pr eci pi ta te d th is cas e, di sa gr ees wit h th e 5

p l a i n ti ffs ’ al le ga ti on s. “ The Co m m is si on ’s Co m

pl ai nt do es no t al le

ge th at [ t h e de fen da nt s’] in it ia l deci si on s to red uc e fil l le ve ls to 15 po un ds were th e res ul t of an

ag reem en t.” In re Ferr el lg as Part ne rs , L.P., FTC Doc ke t N o

. 9 3 60

, 20 14 W L
57 87 60 5, at *6 (Oct . 31 , 20 14 ) (em ph as is ad de d)

.

-2 4-pl au si bl y pl ed a li ve , on go in g con sp ira cy am on g th es e co m pe ti to rs ? The an swe r to

th is qu es ti on is li ke wis e si m pl e: No.

III.

To d a y’s op in io n ru ns co un te r to th e pu rp os es th at un de rli e th e im po si ti on o f

a li m it at io ns pe rio d in pr iv at e an ti tru st act io ns

. The fir st pu rp os e is to li m it th e pu bl ic

ha rm in cu rred by th e co ns pi racy. See Z Tech s. Co rp

. v. Lub riz ol Co rp

. , 7 5 3 F.3 d

59 4, 60 3 (6 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (“ By en co ur ag in g pa rti es to br in g su it s earl ie r, th e st at ut e of

li mi t a t io ns at te m

pt s to m in im iz e th e pu bl ic ha rm th at m ig ht ari se fro m ha rm fu l

m on op ol ie s

. . . .”). Perm it ti ng pa rti es li ke th e pl ai nt i f f s t o b r i n g an ti tru st su it s
refl ect s a “ co ng res si on al ob jecti ve of en co ur ag in g ci vi l li ti ga ti on to su pp le m en t

Gov ern m en t effo rts to de te r an d pe na li ze th e

. . . pr oh ib it ed pr act ic es .” Ro te ll a v.

W oo d, 5 28 U.S. 54 9, 5 57 (20 00 ) (“ The ob ject . . . is th us no t m erel y to co m pe ns at e
vi ct im s bu t tu rn th em in to pr os ecu to rs , ‘pr iv at e at to rn ey s ge ne ral ’ . . . .”). Bec au se

“ pr iv at e su it s un de r t h e a n t i tru st la ws are al lo wed to co rrec t pu bl ic wro ng s, it is

ap pr op ria te to en co ur ag e s u i ts as so on as po ss ib le to st op (o r at le as t co m pe ns at e)

ha rm to th e pu bl ic .” Mi dwe st ern Mac h., 3 92 F.3d at 27 2. Co ng res s di d no t in te nd

fo r pl ai nt iff

s to si t ba ck

, wit h fu ll kn owl ed ge of th e 20 08 co ns pi r a c y, an d wait si x

y ears be fo re fin al ly co rrec ti ng a pu bl ic ha rm

. See Ro t e l l a , 5 28 U.S. at 55 9 6
(d es cri bi ng th e an ti tru st en fo rcem en t sc he m e as “ ai m ed at rewar di ng th e swi ft who

un de rta ke li ti ga ti on in th e p ub li c g oo d” ).

Beyond a co nc ern fo r li m it in g pu bl ic ha rm , a li m it at io ns pe rio d al so pr ov id es

rep os e to de fen da nt s an d av oi ds th e un ne ces sa ry de fen se of st al e c l a i m s. The

The m ajor it y o p i n i o n of fers th is sm al l co m fo rt to de fen da nt s: a pl ai nt iff 6

can no t reco ve r fo r in

juri es su ffer ed ou ts id e th e fo ur -y ear li m it at io ns pe rio d. Bu t I se e

no th in g in th is op in io n pr ev en ti ng a ne w la wsu it ag ai ns t th e de fen da nt s fo ur (o r 40 )

y ears fro m no w so lo ng as fil l le ve ls rem ai n at 15 po un ds

, e v e n if pr ic e flu ct ua te s. Sm al l co m fo rt i nd eed

.

-2 5-an ti tru st li m it at io ns pe rio d pr ov id es fin al it y an d cert ai nt y to bu si n e ss tra ns act io ns

.

2 Ph il li p E. Areed a & Herb ert Hov en ka m p , A n ti tru st Law ¶ 32 0a

, at 32 5 (4 th ed

. 20 14 ). It sa ve s de fen da nt s fro m th e sp ect er of pe rp et ua l li ti ga ti on

. And th e ne ed fo r

ti m el y pr os ecu ti on of cl ai m s i s es pe ci al ly great in an ti tru st la w. “ Ant it ru st li ab il it y
de pe nd s no t o n l y o n th e pa rti es ’ act s bu t al so on m an y su rro un di ng ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g th e be ha vi or of ri va l fi rm s an d ge ne ral m ark et co nd it io ns —m at te rs th at m ay
be ha rd to reco ns tru ct lo ng aft erwar ds .” Id

. at 32 6. Al l o w i ng su it s to be br ou gh t

m an y y ears aft er th e an ti tru st vi ol at io n o c c ur red m ay well de pr iv e de fen da nt s th e

op po rtu ni ty to p res en t a p ro pe r de fen se

.

IV.

In to da y ’s op in io n, th e m ajor it y ha s m or ph ed Kleh r in to a sl ed ge ha m m er and

th en rear ed th at ha m

m er to sh at te r th e an ti tru st st at ut e of li m it at io ns

. I do no t be li ev e

th at was t he Su pr em e Co ur t’s i nt en t in Kleh r, no r do I be li ev e th e la w per m it s s uc h

a res ul t. I res pe ct fu ll y

di ss en t.

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

-2 6-