In Re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation
350 F. Supp. 2d 160 | District Court, D. Maine | 2004
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Vehicle buyers sued automakers and dealer associations claiming they conspired to block cheaper Canadian imports and inflate U.S. prices. The court allowed most state antitrust and consumer protection claims to proceed, even though federal antitrust damages were blocked. This matters to subcontractors because it shows courts will allow indirect purchaser claims under state law when federal law blocks them—a strategy that could apply to construction supply chain disputes.
Key Takeaways
- •State antitrust laws can provide a workaround when federal antitrust damages are unavailable due to the Illinois Brick rule limiting indirect purchaser claims
- •You don't need to name all conspirators as defendants to pursue state law claims—the court allowed claims against only some parties in the alleged conspiracy
- •Consumer protection statutes and restitution claims under state law offer alternative paths to recover damages when federal antitrust claims fail
Motion to dismiss granted as to Louisiana antitrust claim; denied as to sixteen states.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I sue for price-fixing if I didn't buy directly from the conspirators?
Yes, under state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Federal law blocks indirect purchaser damages, but this case shows state laws often allow them. You don't need to name every conspirator as a defendant—just allege they worked together to harm you.
Related Cases
Luis E. Garcia, M.D. v. Copenhaver, Bell & Associates, m.d.'s, P.A., Defendant-Third Party St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Third Party
Whether a defendant qualifies as an 'employer' under ADEA is a substantive element of the plaintiff's claim, not merely a jurisdictional question, and must be decided by a jury rather than dismissed by the judge under Rule 12(b)(1).
Intergen N v. v. Grina
A party cannot be compelled to arbitrate disputes unless it has agreed to do so; InterGen, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreements, is not bound by arbitration clauses in contracts signed by other parties.
Travis County v. Pelzel & Associates, Inc.
Local Government Code § 89.004's presentment requirement is a condition precedent to suit, not a waiver of sovereign immunity, and a county does not waive immunity by withholding contract payments under liquidated damages clauses.
Hamon Contractors, Inc. v. Carter & Burgess, Inc.
The economic loss rule bars post-contractual fraud claims when the alleged fraud arises from duties implicated by a party's performance of contractual terms, even where the fraud is intentional.
Robert Lilley, Cross-Appellee v. Btm Corporation, Cross-Appellant
Lilley was properly determined to be an employee under the ADEA and Elliott-Larsen Act, and the court affirmed his retaliatory discharge claim but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest and remanded for recomputation of costs.
County Commissioners v. J. Roland Dashiell & Sons, Inc.
An express written contract bars quasi-contractual claims for unjust enrichment when the contract addresses the subject matter of the claim.