Home Depot U.S.A., Inc v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Company et al

Filing 69

ORDER GRANTING 57 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Amended Pleadings due by 6/5/2017. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/2/2017. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-04865-BLF

Plaintiff,

9

E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY, et al.,

12

[Re: ECF 57]

Defendants.
13
Plaintiff Home Depot U.S.A, Inc. (“Home Depot”) filed this indirect purchaser action

14
15

against several suppliers of titanium dioxide: E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, Huntsman

16

International, LLC, Kronos Worldwide, Inc., and Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc. 1 Home

17

Depot alleges that Defendants conspired to and did fix the price of titanium dioxide and that Home

18

Depot was injured by that price fixing when it purchased titanium dioxide in Architectural

19

Coatings – a category of products that includes paint – for its own use and for resale. Home Depot

20

alleges a single substantive claim for violation of California’s Cartwright Act, California Business

21

& Professions Code §§ 16700 et seq., and a claim for injunctive and equitable relief.

22

On May 4, 2017, the Court heard Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and granted

23

that motion on the record, with leave to amend on or before June 5, 2017. The Court explained its

24

reasoning in detail from the bench and indicated that it would issue only a brief written order

25

memorializing its ruling. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

26
27
28

1

Huntsman International, LLC has been dismissed from the case pursuant to a stipulated order
issued by the Court on May 31, 2017. See Order of Dismissal of Huntsman International, LLC,
ECF 68.

1

(1)

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

2

(2)

Home Depot shall amend its Cartwright Act claim to allege with more specificity

3

facts showing that application of the Cartwright Act in this case is consistent with

4

the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under the standards

5

articulated in AT&T Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp, 707 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.

6

2013). In particular, Home Depot shall include any additional facts regarding

7

Defendants’ alleged conspiracy, Defendants’ actions in directing titanium dioxide

8

into California, and Home Depot’s purchase of Architectural Coatings containing

9

titanium dioxide in California.

10

(3)

Home Depot shall amend its Cartwright Act claim to allege with more specificity

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

facts relevant to application of the four-year statute of limitations. See Cal. Bus. &

12

Prof. Code § 16750.1. In particular, Home Depot shall allege any additional facts

13

relating to its theories of fraudulent concealment (including its asserted discovery

14

date), equitable tolling, and continuing violation.

15

(4)

new claims or parties without first obtaining leave of the Court.

16
17
18

Leave to amend is limited to the Cartwright Act claim; Home Depot may not add

(5)

Consistent with the oral ruling issued at the hearing, any amended pleading shall be
filed on or before June 5, 2017.

19
20
21
22

Dated: June 2, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2