Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1875 filed 04/11/18 PageID.35006 Page 1 of
` 196
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
`
`
`
`IN RE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`In Re: Instrument Panel Clusters
`In Re: Fuel Senders
`In Re: Heater Control Panels
`In Re: Alternators
`In Re: Windshield Wiper Systems
`In Re: Radiators
`In Re: Starters
`In Re: Ignition Coils
`In Re: Motor Generators
`In Re: HID Ballasts
`In Re: Inverters
`In Re: Fuel Injection Systems
`In Re: Power Window Motors
`In Re: Automatic Fluid Transmission Warmers
`In Re: Valve Timing Control Devices
`In Re: Air Conditioning Systems
`In Re: Windshield Washer Systems
`In Re: Spark Plugs
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`DEALERSHIP ACTIONS
`
`
`Master File No. 12-md-02311
`Honorable Marianne O. Battani
`
`
`2:12-cv-00202
`2:12-cv-00302
`2:12-cv-00402
`2:13-cv-00702
`2:13-cv-00902
`2:13-cv-01002
`2:13-cv-01102
`2:13-cv-01402
`2:13-cv-01502
`2:13-cv-01702
`2:13-cv-01802
`2:13-cv-02202
`2:13-cv-02302
`2:13-cv-02402
`2:13-cv-02502
`2:13-cv-02702
`2:13-cv-02802
`2:15-cv-03002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AUTOMOTIVE DEALER PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CLAIMS AND AMEND COMPLAINTS
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that as soon thereafter as it may be heard before the
`
`Honorable Marianne O. Battani, Automotive Dealer Plaintiffs (“ADP” or “Plaintiffs”) will
`
`and do hereby respectfully move the Court for an order:
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1875 filed 04/11/18 PageID.35007 Page 2 of
` 196
`
`
`
`Consolidating claims in the ADP actions in the following cases:
`
`1.
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`
`(i)
`
`(j)
`
`(k)
`
`(l)
`
`In Re: Instrument Panel Clusters, Case 2:12-cv-00202;
`
`In Re: Fuel Senders, Case 2:12-cv-00302;
`
`In Re: Heater Control Panels, Case 2:12-cv-00402;
`
`In Re: Alternators, Case 2:13-cv-00702;
`
`In Re: Windshield Wiper Systems, Case 2:13-cv-00902;
`
`In Re: Radiators, Case 2:13-cv-01002;
`
`In Re: Starters, Case 2:13-cv-01102;
`
`In Re: Ignition Coils, Case 2:13-cv-01402;
`
`In Re: Motor Generators, Case 2:13-cv-01502;
`
`In Re: HID Ballasts, Case 2:13-cv-01702;
`
`In Re: Inverters, Case 2:13-cv-01802;
`
`In Re: Fuel Injection Systems, Case 2:13-cv-02202;
`
`(m)
`
`In Re: Power Window Motors, Case 2:13-cv-02302;
`
`(n)
`
`(o)
`
`(p)
`
`(q)
`
`(r)
`
`In Re: Automatic Fluid Transmission Warmers, Case 2:13-cv-02402;
`
`In Re: Valve Timing Control Devices, Case 2:13-cv-02502;
`
`In Re: Air Conditioning Systems, Case 2:13-cv-02702;
`
`In Re: Windshield Washer Systems, Case 2:13-cv-02802; and
`
`In Re: Spark Plugs, Case 2:15-cv-03002 (collectively, with other cases,
`
`“Relevant Cases”).
`
`against the following defendants (by defendant group):
`
`(a)
`
`DENSO Corp., DENSO International America, Inc., DENSO International
`Korea Corp., DENSO Korea Automotive Corp., DENSO Products &
`Services Americas, ASMO Co., Ltd., ASMO North America, LLC,
`
` 
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1875 filed 04/11/18 PageID.35008 Page 3 of
` 196
`
`
`
`ASMO Greenville of North Carolina, Inc., ASMO Manufacturing, Inc.,
`and ASMO North Carolina Inc. (collectively, “DENSO”);
`
`
`(b)
`
`
`(c)
`
`
`(d)
`
`
`(e)
`
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`
`
`(i)
`
`(j)
`
`Aisan Industry Co., Ltd., Aisan Corp. of America, Franklin Precision
`Industry, Inc., and Hyundam Industrial Co., Ltd. (collectively, “AISAN”);
`
`Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd. and Aisin Automotive Casting, LLC (collectively,
`“AISIN SEIKI”);
`
`Alps Automotive, Inc., Alps Electric (North America), Inc., and Alps
`Electric Co., Ltd. (collectively, “ALPS”);
`
`Calsonic Kansei Corp. and Calsonic Kansei North America, Inc.
`(collectively, “CALSONIC”);
`
`Inc., Continental Automotive
`Continental Automotive Systems,
`Electronics, LLC, and Continental Automotive Korea Ltd. (collectively,
`“CONTINENTAL”);
`
`Delphi Automotive LLP and Korea Delphi Automotive Systems Corp.
`(collectively, “DELPHI”);
`
`Diamond Electric Mfg. Co., Ltd. and Diamond Electric Mfg. Corp.
`(collectively, “DIAMOND”);
`
`Keihin Corp. and Keihin North America, Inc. (collectively, “KEIHIN”);
`
`Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and North American Lighting, Inc.
`(collectively, “KOITO”);
`
`
`(k) MAHLE Behr GmbH & Co. KG and MAHLE Behr USA Inc.
`(collectively, “MAHLE BEHR”);
`
`
`(l) Mikuni America Corp. (“MIKUNI”);
`
`(m) Mitsuba Corp. and American Mitsuba Corp. (collectively, “MITSUBA”);
`
`(n) Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc., and
`Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America, Inc. (collectively, “MELCO”);
`
`
`(o) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America,
`Inc., and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Climate Control, Inc. (collectively,
`“MITSUBISHI HEAVY”);
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1875 filed 04/11/18 PageID.35009 Page 4 of
` 196
`
`
`
`NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.) Holding, Inc., NGK Spark Plugs (USA) Inc.,
`NGK Spark Plugs Co. Ltd., and NTK Technologies, Inc. (collectively,
`“NGK”);
`
`Robert Bosch LLC and Robert Bosch GmbH (collectively, “BOSCH”);
`
`Sanden International (U.S.A.) Inc. (“SANDEN”);
`
`Showa Denko K.K. and Showa Aluminum Corp. of America (collectively,
`“SHOWA DENKO”);
`
`Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., Stanley Electric U.S. Co., Inc., and II Stanley
`Co., Inc. collectively (“STANLEY”);
`
`Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. and TRAM, Inc. (collectively, “TOKAI RIKA”);
`
`(p)
`
`
`(q)
`
`(r)
`
`(s)
`
`
`(t)
`
`
`(u)
`
`(v)
`
`Toyo Denso Co. Ltd. and Weastec, Inc. (collectively, “TOYO DENSO”);
`and
`
`
`(w) Valeo Japan Co., Ltd., Valeo Inc., Valeo Electrical Systems, Inc., and
`Valeo Climate Control Corp. (collectively, “VALEO”) (collectively,
`“defendants”).
`
`Granting Plaintiffs leave to file a consolidated amended class action complaint
`
`2.
`
`(“CAC”) alleging claims against all defendants identified, supra, for having engaged in a
`
`conspiracy to unlawfully fix and artificially raise the prices of automotive parts sold in the
`
`United States and elsewhere as set forth in the Proposed CAC submitted with this Motion. See
`
`Ex. A (ADPs’ Proposed CAC).
`
`DENSO is currently named as a defendant in all of the Relevant Cases. Plaintiffs’
`
`Proposed CAC alleges an international price-fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation
`
`conspiracy coordinated by DENSO. In addition to DENSO, participants in the unlawful
`
`conspiracy included many of the largest automotive parts suppliers in the world. Defendants’
`
`unlawful conduct resulted in artificially inflated prices for automobiles from and including July
`
`1, 1998 through such time as the anticompetitive effects of the defendants’ conduct ceased.
`
`This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1875 filed 04/11/18 PageID.35010 Page 5 of
` 196
`
`
`
`and Authorities in support thereof, filings in In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation (“Auto
`
`Parts”), and such other arguments as may be presented to the Court.
`
`In accordance with Local Rule 7.1(a)(1), Plaintiffs have engaged in multiple meet-and-
`
`confers with defendants since November 2015 concerning Plaintiffs’ intention to file a motion to
`
`consolidate the claims in the Relevant Cases. During the course of these meet-and-confers,
`
`Plaintiffs shared with defendants a draft of a CAC that is substantively similar to the Proposed
`
`CAC, and defendants have not concurred in the relief requested by Plaintiffs.
`
`Date: January 7, 2016
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Jonathan W. Cuneo
`
`Jonathan W. Cuneo
`Joel Davidow
`Daniel Cohen
`Victoria Romanenko
`Evelyn Li
`Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP
`507 C Street, N.E.
`Washington, DC 20002
`Telephone: (202) 789-3960
`jonc@cuneolaw.com
`joel@cuneolaw.com
`danielc@cuneolaw.com
`vicky@cuneolaw.com
`evelyn@cuneolaw.com
`
`Don Barrett
`David McMullan
`Brian Herrington
`BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
`P.O. Box 927
`404 Court Square
`Lexington, MS 39095
`Telephone: (662) 834-2488
`Facsimile: (662)834-2628
`dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
`bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com
`dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1875 filed 04/11/18 PageID.35011 Page 6 of
` 196
`
`
`
`
`Shawn M. Raiter
`LARSON · KING, LLP
`2800 Wells Fargo Place
`30 East Seventh Street
`St. Paul, MN 55101
`Telephone: (651) 312-6500
`Facsimile: (651) 312-6618
`sraiter@larsonking.com
`
`Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel for Dealership
`Plaintiffs
`
`Gerard V. Mantese
`(Michigan Bar No. P34424)
`Mantese Honigman
`and Williamson, P.C.
`1361 E. Big Beaver Road
`Troy, Michigan 48083
`Telephone: (248) 607-9200
`gmantese@manteselaw.com
`
`Interim Liaison Counsel for Dealership Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1875 filed 04/11/18 PageID.35012 Page 7 of
` 196
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`Master File No. 12-md-02311
`Honorable Marianne O. Battani
`
`
`2:12-cv-00202
`2:12-cv-00302
`2:12-cv-00402
`2:13-cv-00702
`2:13-cv-00902
`2:13-cv-01002
`2:13-cv-01102
`2:13-cv-01402
`2:13-cv-01502
`2:13-cv-01702
`2:13-cv-01802
`2:13-cv-02202
`2:13-cv-02302
`2:13-cv-02402
`2:13-cv-02502
`2:13-cv-02702
`2:13-cv-02802
`2:15-cv-03002
`
`
`
`
`::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
`
`
`
`IN RE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`In Re: Instrument Panel Clusters
`In Re: Fuel Senders
`In Re: Heater Control Panels
`In Re: Alternators
`In Re: Windshield Wiper Systems
`In Re: Radiators
`In Re: Starters
`In Re: Ignition Coils
`In Re: Motor Generators
`In Re: HID Ballasts
`In Re: Inverters
`In Re: Fuel Injection Systems
`In Re: Power Window Motors
`In Re: Automatic Fluid Transmission Warmers
`In Re: Valve Timing Control Devices
`In Re: Air Conditioning Systems
`In Re: Windshield Washer Systems
`In Re: Spark Plugs
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`DEALERSHIP ACTIONS
`
`
`
`AUTOMOTIVE DEALER PLAINTIFFS’
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CLAIMS AND AMEND COMPLAINTS
`
` 
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1875 filed 04/11/18 PageID.35013 Page 8 of
` 196
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED ............................................... vii
`CONTROLLING AUTHORITY FOR THE RELIEF SOUGHT ..................... viii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 1
`II. RELEVANT FACTS .................................................................................... 3
`III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ 7
`A.
`The Court should grant consolidation to further the goal of judicial
`economy. ........................................................................................................... 7
`1. The standard for consolidation is broad and requires that cases
`simply involve common question of law or fact. ..................... 7
`2. Courts have broad discretion to consolidate cases when a
`common question of law or fact exists. .................................... 9
`3. This Court also has broad powers to manage Auto Parts per
`28 U.S.C. § 1407. ................................................................... 10
`4. Plaintiffs have met the standards for consolidation. .............. 10
`5. The Relevant Cases have characteristics that are amenable to
`consolidation. .......................................................................... 13
`6. Other factors considered influential in finding in favor of
`consolidation are present. ....................................................... 15
`The Court should grant Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaints in
`the Relevant Cases and to file their Proposed CAC. ............................ 17
`1. Courts freely grant leave to amend. ....................................... 18
`2. The standard permitting for amendment is a balancing test of
`several factors that militates in favor of Plaintiffs amending
`their complaints. ..................................................................... 18
`3. Plaintiffs have met the standard for amendment. .................190
`a. Amendment would not result in undue prejudice. ......... 19
`b. There has been no undue delay....................................... 20
`i
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1875 filed 04/11/18 PageID.35014 Page 9 of
` 196
`
`
`
`c. There has been no bad faith. ........................................... 22
`d. Amendment would not be futile. .................................... 22
`III. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`ii
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1875 filed 04/11/18 PageID.35015 Page 10 of
` 196
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Advey v. Celotex Corp.,
`962 F.2d 1177 (9th Cir. 1992) ................................................................................ 8
`
`
`Bell v. Allstate Life Ins. Co.,
`160 F.3d 452 (8th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................ 19
`
`
`Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films,
`410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................ 21
`
`
`C.T. v. Liberal Sch. Dist.,
`562 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (D. Kan. 2008) ................................................................... 16
`
`
`Cantrell v. GAF Corp.,
`999 F.2d 1007 (6th Cir. 1993) ...........................................................................2, 9
`
`
`Chatham Condominium Ass’ns v. Century Village, Inc.,
`597 F.2d 1002 (5th Cir. 1979) ......................................................................... 9, 10
`
`
`Colvin v. Caruso,
`605 F.3d 282 (6th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................ 19
`
`
`EEOC v. Von Maur, Inc.,
`237 F.R.D. 195 (S.D. Iowa 2006) ......................................................................... 14
`
`
`Estes v. Kentucky Utilities Co.,
`636 F.2d 1131 (6th Cir. 1980) .............................................................................. 20
`
`
`Foman v. Davis,
`371 U.S. 178 (1962) ......................................................................................... 2, 19
`
`
`Garnett-Bishop v. New York Community Bancorp, Inc.,
`49 F. Supp. 3d 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) .................................................................... 18
`
`
`Hageman v. Signal L.P. Gas, Inc.,
`486 F.2d 479 (6th Cir. 1973) ................................................................................ 20
`
` 
`
`iii
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1875 filed 04/11/18 PageID.35016 Page 11 of
` 196
`
`
`
`
`
`Hanes Cos. v. Ronson,
`712 F. Supp. 1223 (M.D.N.C. 1988) ...................................................................... 8
`
`
`Hayden v. Ford Motor Co.,
`497 F.2d 1292 (6th Cir. 1974) .............................................................................. 20
`Head v. Timken Roller Bearing,
`486 F.2d 870 (6th Cir. 1980) ................................................................................ 20
`
`
`Hemlock Semiconductor Corp. v. Kyocera Corp.,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138018 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 9, 2015) .................................... 9
`
`
`In re Auto Parts Antitrust Litig. (HCP),
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61636 (E.D. Mich. April 30, 2014) ................................ 25
`
`
`In re Macon Uplands Venture,
`624 F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1980) .................................................................................... 8
`
`
`In re Recticel Foam Corp. (In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig.),
`859 F. 2d. 1000 (1st Cir. 1988) ............................................................................. 10
`
`
`In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig.,
`859 F.2d 1007 (1st Cir. 1998) ............................................................................... 10
`
`
`In re Showa Denko K.K. L-Tryptophan Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`953 F.2d 162 (4th Cir. 1992) ................................................................................ 10
`
`
`In re Wirebound Boxes Antitrust Litig.,
`128 F.R.D. 256 (D. Minn. 1989) ................................................................... 13, 14
`
`
`Jamieson v. Shaw,
`772 F.2d 1205 (5th Cir. 1985) .............................................................................. 19
`
`
`Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Sys.,
`165 F.3d 419 (6th Cir. 1999) ................................................................................ 19
`
`
`Johnson v. Celotex Corp.,
`899 F.2d 1281 (2d Cir. 1990) ............................................................................... 16
`
`
`
` 
`
`iv
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1875 filed 04/11/18 PageID.35017 Page 12 of
` 196
`
`
`
`Katz v. Realty Equities Corp.,
`521 F.2d 1354 (2d Cir. 1975) ............................................................................... 17
`
`
`KFC Corp. v. Kazi,
`29 F. Supp. 3d 945 (W.D. Ky. 2014) .................................................................... 17
`
`
`Lawson v. Truck Drivers, etc.,
`698 F.2d 250 (6th Cir. 1983) ................................................................................ 20
`
`
`Lloyd v. Industrial Bio-Test Lab., Inc.,
`454 F. Supp. 807 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) ....................................................................... 15
`
`
`Louisiana v. Litton Mortgage Co.,
`50 F.3d 1298 (5th Cir. 1995) ................................................................................ 24
`
`
`Milanese v. Rust-Oleum Corp.,
`244 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2001) ................................................................................. 25
`
`
`Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon,
`145 U.S. 285 (1892) ..................................................................................... 2, 8, 16
`
`
`Ohio ex rel. Montgomery v. Louis Trauth Dairy,
`163 F.R.D. 500 (S.D. Ohio 1995) ........................................................................... 9
`
`
`Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Kevin Tucker & Assocs., Inc.,
`64 F.3d 1001 (6th Cir. 1995) ................................................................................ 21
`
`
`Somers v. Charter Twp. Of Clayton,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28494 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 6, 2014) ..................................... 9
`
`
`Waste Distillation Tech., Inc. v. Pan Am. Res., Inc.,
`775 F. Supp. 759 (D. Del. 1991) ........................................................................... 18
`
`
`Werner v. Satterlee, Stephens, Burke & Burke,
`797 F. Supp. 1196 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) ..................................................................... 15
`Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1 note
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1407(a) ........................................................................................... 2, 10
`
` 
`
`v
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1875 filed 04/11/18 PageID.35018 Page 13 of
` 196
`
`
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). .................................................................................................. 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`The Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth), § 10 .................................................. 3
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 ........................................................................................................ 2
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) ........................................................................................... 2, 17
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(L) ....................................................................................... 2
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 ..................................................................................................2, 9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) ................................................................................................... 9
`
` 
`
`vi
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1875 filed 04/11/18 PageID.35019 Page 14 of
` 196
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED
`the Court should consolidate Plaintiffs’ claims against
`1. Whether
`defendants in the Relevant Cases because:
`(a) The claims against each of the defendants in the Relevant Cases
`present common issues of law and fact such that the criteria of Federal
`Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 42 are satisfied;
`(b) No party would suffer undue prejudice from consolidation and
`amendment; and
`(c) Consolidation would decrease costs and reduce delay, carry no risk
`of prejudice to any defendant, and best serve the interests of justice.
`2. Whether the Court should permit the Plaintiffs to amend their complaints
`in the Relevant Cases by filing the CAC because:
`(a) The Sixth Circuit has a liberal policy of allowing amendments to
`complaints;
`(b) Plaintiffs can plausibly allege that each of the defendants had a
`conscious commitment to a common scheme to fix the prices of
`automotive parts sold to Original Equipment Manufacturers (“OEMs”);
`and
` There is no prejudice to any defendant by virtue of the proposed
`(c)
`consolidation and amendment.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`vii
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1875 filed 04/11/18 PageID.35020 Page 15 of
` 196
`
`
`
`
`CONTROLLING AUTHORITY FOR THE RELIEF SOUGHT
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 1
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(L)
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 42
`28 U.S.C. § 1407(a)
`Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007 (6th Cir. 1993)
`Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962)
`Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 (1892)
`
` 
`
`viii
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1875 filed 04/11/18 PageID.35021 Page 16 of
` 196
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`
`For many years, defendants in the above-captioned automotive parts cases—
`led by DENSO, which is named as a defendant in more cases than any other
`defendant—have maintained that the almost three dozen cases before the Court
`involving conspiracies to fix the prices of automotive parts sold to OEMs are
`independent and have nothing to do with each other. Based on the information
`obtained to date, Plaintiffs now have a good faith basis to allege that DENSO was
`at the center of a large, multi-part conspiracy, which DENSO carried out with the
`other defendants who are the subject of this Motion. For this reason, Plaintiffs now
`bring this Motion to consolidate and to file a CAC with respect to the automotive
`parts involved in this conspiracy. The interests of justice and judicial economy
`support this Motion, and the authorities cited herein provide a firm basis for the
`requested relief. Plaintiffs bring this Motion:
`(a) To consolidate claims asserted in the 18 currently separate automotive
`parts cases into a single case; and
`(b) To file a CAC alleging a single conspiracy with DENSO at the center.
`As alleged in the Proposed CAC filed herewith (Ex. A), DENSO and each
`co-conspirator named therein conspired to fix, raise, and maintain the prices of
`certain automotive parts1 sold to OEMs in the United States and elsewhere. The
`illegal conspiracy began at least as early as July 1, 1998 and continued until at least
`February 2011. The unlawful conspiracy largely targeted large Japanese OEMs,
`such as like Toyota Motor Co., Honda Motor Co., Ltd., Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.,
`
`                                                            
`1 Instrument Panel Clusters (“IPC”), Fuel Senders, Heater Control Panels (“HCP”), Alternators,
`Windshield Wiper Systems, Radiators, Starters, Ignition Coils, Motor Generators, HID Ballasts,
`Inverters, Fuel Injection Systems, Power Window Motors, Automatic Fluid Transmission
`Warmers, Valve Timing Control Devices, Air Conditioning Systems, Windshield Washer
`Systems, and Spark Plugs.
`
` 
`
`1
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1875 filed 04/11/18 PageID.35022 Page 17 of
` 196
`
`
`
`
`and Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd. (owner of Subaru). The conspiracy began in Japan,
`and like a flu spread around the world, adversely affecting other OEMs, including,
`but not limited to, Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co., FCA US LLC (Chrysler),
`Volkswagen, Daimler AG, and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW). The
`conspiracy was carried out through the same type of conduct, which included at
`least the following:
`so-called “incumbency” or
`(1) Respecting each co-conspirator’s
`“commercial rights,” referred to as “shōken” in Japanese;
`(2) Refraining from competing for customers;
`(3) Allocating customers;
`(4) Allocating geographic markets;
`(5) Coordinating responses to requests for quotation (“RFQs”); and
`(6) Coordinating responses to requests for price reductions.
`
`Among the reasons why the Plaintiffs were not able to bring this
`Motion earlier is the fact that defendants, and especially DENSO, control the facts
`about the automotive parts conspiracy and have fought and substantially delayed
`disclosure of those facts. One defendant that is the leniency applicant in most of
`the Relevant Cases dribbled facts out2—maintaining the pretense that the
`coordinated conduct, simultaneously carried out by common means and common
`actors and involving common victims, was merely an extraordinary coincidence of
`conspiratorial conduct that just happened to arise and be carried out at the same
`time. It is now time to penetrate the silos that DENSO and its co-conspirators
`created as part of their joint defense group strategy to defend these cases. It is time
`
`                                                            
`2 Despite the extent of its involvement in the automotive parts conspiracy, Plaintiffs’ records
`reflect that the leniency applicant has only provided around 15 days of proffers between its first
`proffer in December 2012 and its most recent proffer in December 2015, or the course of three
`years. Plaintiffs also note that most of these proffers were not full-day proffers.
`
` 
`
`2
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1875 filed 04/11/18 PageID.35023 Page 18 of
` 196
`
`
`
`
`to provide Plaintiffs—the real victims of this conspiracy—with the opportunity to
`prove their claims against defendants. It is time to provide the Court with a
`reasonable and practical means to bring these cases to final resolution. The Motion
`should be granted because Plaintiffs have met all of the requirements for
`consolidation and because the Proposed CAC is neither prejudicial nor futile.
`
`All of the goals of this Motion are in accordance with the standards
`governing these actions. Section 1407 of Title 28 of the United States Code
`provides that multidistrict litigation should further the “convenience of parties and
`witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions.” 28 U.S.C. §
`1407(a). Rule 1 also directs courts and parties to work towards the “just, speedy,
`and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” The Manual for
`Complex Litigation (Fourth), § 10, further provides that:
`
`Fair and efficient resolution of complex litigation requires at least that
`. . . the judge and counsel collaborate to develop and carry out a
`comprehensive plan for the conduct of pretrial and trial proceedings.
`Now is the time to carry out these fundamental mandates. Plaintiffs have now
`developed sufficient information to permit them to plausibly allege the broader
`conspiracy set forth in the Proposed CAC. The Department of Justice (“DOJ”)’s
`stay of discovery has been lifted, and discovery can proceed, in all of the Relevant
`Cases that are subject to this Motion.
`
`II. RELEVANT FACTS
`
`
`On February 7, 2012, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
`Litigation (“Judicial Panel” or “Panel”) transferred actions sharing
`“factual questions arising out of an alleged conspiracy to inflate, fix,
`raise, maintain, or artificially stabilize prices of automotive wire
`harness systems” to the Eastern District of Michigan. (12-md-02311,
`Doc. No. 2). In its transfer order, the Judicial Panel noted that the
`majority of cases were pending in the Eastern District, as was the first
`filed action, that several defendants were located in this district, and
`that a related criminal investigation was underway in this district. (Id.)
`The Panel determined that centralizing litigation in this District would
`eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings
`and conserve resources. (Id.) After complaints were filed alleging
`
` 
`
`3
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1875 filed 04/11/18 PageID.35024 Page 19 of
` 196
`
`
`
`conspiracies to fix prices of three additional component parts, the
`Judicial Panel determined that including all actions in MDL No. 2311
`would result in the most efficient handling of the case. The Judicial
`Panel noted the existence of similar conspiracies with overlapping
`defendants arising from the same government investigation as well
`as an overlap of parties and counsel. The additional component part
`cases were
`transferred
`to
`this Court for coordinated pretrial
`proceedings, and In re: Automotive Wire Harness Systems Antitrust
`Litigation was renamed “In re: Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation.”
`(Doc. No. 117 in 12-2311). There are now twenty-eight component
`part cases pending. (See Doc. No. 665 in 12-2311).
`
`
`Opinion and Order Denying Defendants’ Collective Motion to Dismiss ACAP’s
`Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint at 1-2, Case No. 2:12-cv-00201
`(IPC), ECF No. 86 (Apr. 30, 2014) (emphasis added). There are currently over 30
`automotive parts cases pending before this Court.
`By this Motion, Plaintiffs seek to consolidate 18 ADP actions that are part of
`this multidistrict litigation and to file a CAC alleging a single conspiracy. The
`earliest of the actions subject to this Motion, IPC, was filed on January 31, 2012.
`The latest of the actions subject to this Motion, Spark Plugs, was filed on May 22,
`2015. None of the Relevant Cases has progressed to the point that consolidation
`and amendment would be inappropriate or prejudicial. None of the Relevant Cases
`is subject to the present schedule for class certification motions. Only three of the
`Relevant Cases—IPC, Fuel Senders, and HCP—have case management orders,
`and the case management orders in these cases are only initial case management
`orders setting very basic parameters. None of them set a final date by which
`proposed amendments to the pleadings are subject to the higher standards of Rule
`16 rather than the more liberal standards of Rule 15.
`
`Few of these actions have proceeded to meaningful discovery and, other
`than the productions of DOJ documents, virtually none of the Relevant Actions
`filed after Fuel Senders has had any discovery take place whatsoever—in part, due
`to those defendants’ refusal to participate in discovery and, in part, due to the stay
`
` 
`
`4
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM ECF No. 1875 filed 04/11/18 PageID.35025 Page 20 of
` 196
`
`
`
`
`issued at the request of the DOJ. No depositions have yet been taken of any
`defendant in Auto Parts—let alone, the Relevant Cases.
`
`Throughout this coordinated litigation, defendants have repeatedly sought to
`perpetuate the myth that all of these cases are separate and independent of each
`other, even while they controlled all of the facts and information that would have
`revealed that this was not true. For instance, as illustrated below, defendants made
`the following statements when Plaintiffs sought to coordinate the cases subject to
`this MDL to create efficiencies for the parties and the Court:
`
`This litigation “contains 29 sets of unrelated cases that each involves a
`unique set of facts, distinct products, different alleged conspiracies,
`and varying groups of defendants—yet all under the same MDL
`umbrella.”3
`
`“IPC & FS Defendants agree with the arguments . . . in the Wire
`Harness Products Defendants’ Opposition to Certain Plaintiffs’
`Motion to Coordinate All Actions in MDL 2311[.]”4
`
`“As the Court knows all too well, more than two dozen sets of cases,
`each involving claims by different sets of direct purchasers, auto
`dealerships, and end-payor plaintiffs, against different (although in
`some cases overlapping) defendants, based on different alleged
`conspiracies involving different products, have now been consolidated
`into this same MDL.”
`
`“By seeking to group these cases, plaintiffs also gloss over the fact
`that their complaints each allege a different conspiracy, among
`different defendants, at different time periods, involving different
`products.”5
`
`
`
`