Document: 490 U.S. 93 109 S.Ct. 1661 104 L.Ed.2d 86 CALIFORNIA, et al., Appellantsv.ARC AMERICA CORPORATION al. No. 87-1862. Argued Feb. 27, 1989. Decided April 18, Syllabus Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 720, 97 2061, 52 707, held that, generally, only overcharged direct purchasers, and not subsequent indirect are entitled to recover treble damages under § 4 of the Clayton Act for price fixing violative 1 Sherman Act. Appellant States—who are, at least in part, purchasers cement—brought class actions against various cement producers appropriate federal courts seeking antitrust laws an alleged nationwide conspiracy fix prices violations their respective state laws, which arguably allow all overcharges passed on them by purchasers. The cases were transferred District Court Arizona coordinated pretrial proceedings, a settlement was reached with several major defendants. When appellants sought payment out fund purchaser claims, appellees, members who objected. court refused ruling that statutes pre-empted law because they clear attempts frustrate Congress' purposes objectives, as interpreted Brick. Appeals affirmed, holding depending how construed, would either conflict directly or impermissibly interfere three policy goals identified having been defined Hanover Shoe, Inc. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 481, 88 S. t. 2224, 20 1231; avoiding unnecessarily complicated litigation; providing incentives bring private actions; multiple liability Held: rule limiting recoveries does prevent from recovering flowing violations. Pp. 100-106. (a) laws. There is no claim express pre-emption congressional occupation field. inconsistent with, stand obstacle to, effectuating misunderstands these cases, merely construed did consider state-law standards define interrelationship between law. Nothing suggests it be contrary States own 100-103. (b) In any event, do accomplishing federal-law First, will engender since cannot purport affect available remedies; claims could brought court, separately have discretion decline exercise pendent jurisdiction over burdensome claims. Second, reduce reducing potential recoveries. concerned risk plaintiff might able its entire award offered less settle. Rather, requiring apportion recovery single statute—§ Act—would result one sufficient incentive sue statute. issue pose similar risk. That purchasers' may reduced share due impermissible operation but is, rather, function fact form settlement, intended dispose claimants, whether claiming Third, contravene condemning defendants, simply 4, identify imposing addition imposed 103-106. 817 F.2d 1435, (C.A.9 1987) reversed. WHITE, J., delivered opinion Court, other Members joined, except STEVENS O'CONNOR, JJ., took part consideration decision case. Thomas Greene, appellants. Roy T. Englert, Jr., Washington, D.C., U.S., amicus curiae support appellants, special leave Court. Theodore B. Olson, appellees. [Amicus Curiae Information pages 95-96 intentionally omitted] Justice WHITE 707 (1977), State suit behalf number local governmental entities Act, 38 Stat. 731, amended, 15 U.S.C. 15(a),1 concrete block violation 26 209, 1. governments block—that purchase price-fixing defendants rather purchased products contracted construction into incorporated prior purchaser. limited exceptions,2 persons "injured [their] business property" within meaning therefore portion overcharge it. 2 Appellants present case, Alabama, Arizona, California, Minnesota, classes each State, excluding Federal Government, cement, so Brick, like unless those fell exceptions. complaints, however, also which, matter law, allowed purchasers.3 focus this 3 Numerous filed plaintiffs Courts, proceedings. re Cement Concrete Antitrust Litigation, 437 F.Supp. 750 (JPML 1977). certified established classes. Between July 1979 October 1981, settled classes, resulting excess $32 million. settlements left distribution later resolution, subject approval Appellees, approved plan distributing fund, pursuant statutes. According "[s]uch objectives Congress, Supreme and, accordingly, law." App. Juris. Statement A-31 (emphasis omitted). 5 Ninth Circuit affirmed. 1435 (1987). "three context," 1231 (1968): F.2d, 1445. If permitting restrict suing amount absorbed, view conflicted Alternatively, if permitted "impermissibly outlined Brick." satisfy exception pre-empted. 6 appealed invoking our 28 1254(2). We noted probable jurisdiction, 488 814, 51, 102 29 (1988), we now reverse. 7 should first make exactly what before us. These both Acts. settlements, understand it, covered claims; distributed complete satisfaction Under violation, there here provide remedy forbids. Had gone trial proved, suggestion parties same apply meant settle us prevents despite statutory provisions giving such cause action. 8 path e followed laid cases. It accepted Congress has authority, exercising Article I powers, pre-empt absence statement pre-empted, two bases finding pre-emption. when intends occupy given field, field Pacific Gas & Electric Energy Resources Conservation Development Comm'n, 461 190, 212-213, 103 1713, 1726-27, 75 752 (1983). even occupied nevertheless extent actually conflicts compliance impossible, Florida Lime Avocado Growers, Paul, 373 132, 142-143, 83 1210, 1217-18, 10 248 (1963), "stands accomplishment execution full Congress," Hines Davidowitz, 312 52, 67, 61 399, 404, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941). See, e.g., Silkwood Kerr-McGee 464 238, 248, 615, 621, 78 443 (1984). 9 addition, appellees must overcome presumption areas traditionally regulated States. See Hillsborough County Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 716, 105 2371, 2376, 714 (1985). legislates States, "we start assumption historic police powers superseded manifest purpose Congress." Rice Santa Fe Elevator 331 218, 230, 67 1146, 1152, 91 1447 (1947). Given long history common-law remedies monopolies unfair practices,4 plain area Cf. supra, 146, S.Ct., 1219 (regulation "prevent deception consumers"). light principles, erred expressly recovery.5 Moreover, concede Brief Appellee ARC America Corp. 10, n. 5; Appellees Allied Concrete, 4. supplement, displace, remedies. 21 Cong.Rec. 2457 (1890) (remarks Sen. Sherman); see Cantor Detroit Edison Co., 428 579, 632-635, 96 3110, 3137-39, 49 1141 (1976) (Stewart, dissenting). And occasions, recognized Watson Buck, 313 387, 403, 962, 967, 1416 (1941); Puerto Rico Shell 302 253, 259-260, 58 167, 170-71, 82 235 (1937); cf. Exxon Governor Maryland, 117, 133-134, 98 2207, 2217-18, 57 (1978). 11 Appellees' contention Congress. effect consistent broad laws: deterring anticompetitive conduct ensuring compensation victims conduct. 746, 2074; Brunswick Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, 429 477, 485-486, 690, 695-96, 50 701 (1977). concluded, policies Brick.6 respect, misunderstood 12 Neither addressed pre-emptive force case contains discussion relevant As made strictly question interpretation—what proper 736, 2069. 13 thing defining sort authorizes; something altogether different, inappropriate, allows authorizes monopoly authorizing But nothing 14 concluding concluded proceedings Furthermore, necessarily court. Unlike asserted exclusively courts, §§ 15(a), 26, instance Mine Workers Gibbs, 383 715, 725-726, 1130, 1138-39, 16 218 (1966). Since many heard determined hearing overly burdensome, complication minimal. reasoned allowing presence offers believed, total exhaust defendant's assets, estate bankruptcy Indeed, taken extreme, Appeals' logic lead wholly unrelated, litigation threaten willingness enforcement argue likely can paid purchasers.7 said earlier, whatever allocable Indirect participate funds claimants Even divided than 17 liability, contravention "express policy" liability. 1446 (citing Brick; Associated General Contractors Carpenters, 459 519, 544, 897, 911, 74 723 (1983); Blue Shield Virginia McCready, 457 465, 474-475, 2540, 2545-46, 73 149 (1982)). well Shield, construing Act; none Ordinarily, causes action solely impose above authorized 257-258, 626-27; California Zook, 336 725, 69 841, 847, 1005 (1949), indicates decide otherwise 18 viewed properly, co struing based judgment 19 So ordered. O'CONNOR Section provides follows: "[A]ny person shall injured his property reason anything forbidden therefor district defendant resides found agent, without respect controversy, threefold him sustained, cost suit, including reasonable attorney's fee." 15(a). possible exceptions: entered pre-existing cost-plus contracts, 732, 12, 2067, owned controlled purchaser, id., 16, 2070, 16. Minnesota sue. Ala.Code 6-5-60(a) (1975) (allowing damaged . ., indirect"); Cal.Bus. Prof.Code Ann. 16750(a) (West Supp.1989) "regardless dealt indirectly defendant"); Minn.Stat. 325D.57 (1988) indirectly"). A jurisdictions Colo.Rev.Stat. 6-4-106 (Supp.1988); D.C.Code 28-4509(a) (1981); Haw.Rev.Stat. 480-14(c) (1985); Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 38, ¶ 60-7(2) (1988); Kan.Stat.Ann. 50-801(b) Md.Com.Law Code 11-209 Mich.Comp.Laws 445.778 Supp.1988); Miss.Code 75-21-9 (1972); N.M.Stat.Ann. 57-1-3(A) (1987); R.I.Gen. Laws 6-36-12(g) S.D.Codified 37-1-33 (1986); Wis.Stat. 133.18 (1987-1988). statute, Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 44-1408(A) (1987), generally follows language recover. This appellants' position. 19, 6; 9. dispute interpretation, 21, 14, pass holdings statu At time enactment had already adopted Mosk, Enforcement Coordination Enforcement, A.B.A. 358, 363 (1962). itself, words Senator Sherman, "does announce new principle applies old principles common Government." 2456 (1890). National Cooperative Research 1984, 4303(c) (1982 ed., Supp. V); Export Trading Company 1982, 4016, 4002(a)(7). narrow description asserted, some party suit. implicitly much noting easy prove them. 12. Contrary suggestion, 1445, themselves seek limit obtain

Category: 9