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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?