`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 14-cv-03264-JD
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING FPCAP’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 613
`
`IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant FPCAP Electronics (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (“FPCAP”) seeks dismissal from the
`
`direct purchaser plaintiffs’ consolidated class action complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 613. FPCAP moves separately from the other defendants whose
`
`motions the Court largely denied, Dkt. No. 710, because its response to the complaint was due
`
`later than the other defendants. Dkt. No. 613 at 4.
`
`Direct purchaser plaintiffs point to only paragraphs 59 and 60 of their consolidated
`
`complaint as relating to FPCAP. Dkt. No. 520-2 at 1. These paragraphs, and the consolidated
`
`complaint overall, do not sufficiently allege that FPCAP “joined the conspiracy and played some
`
`role in it.” In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, 586 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1117 (N.D.
`
`Cal. 2008). The allegations of successor liability are also too conclusory to carry the day. See
`
`generally Dkt. No. 710 at 13-14.
`
`Defendant FPCAP is consequently dismissed with leave to amend. The parties are to
`
`follow the schedule already put in place by the Court for any further amendment and response.
`
`Dkt. No. 735.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: June 11, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________________________
`JAMES DONATO
`United States District Judge
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
