Liu v. Amerco et al

Filing 24

Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered granting 12 Motion to Dismiss (Danieli, Chris)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-11221-GAO
MARCIA MEI-LEE LIU, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERCO and U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER
August 22, 2011
O’TOOLE, D.J.
After review of the parties’ submissions and a hearing on the matter, the defendants’ Joint
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (dkt. no. 12) is GRANTED.
Even assuming arguendo that an invitation to collude is an actionable unfair or deceptive
business act or practice under Chapter 93A, the plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege an injury. As
to her own transactions, she alleges only that she “purchased a one-way truck rental from U-Haul”
on two occasions, (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 3), that on both occasions she “used U-Haul’s website to reserve
the truck and obtain a rate quote and reservation confirmation directly from U-Haul,” (id. ¶ 4), and
that “[i]n both instances, [she] paid more for these products than she would have paid absent
Defendants’ unlawful conduct set forth herein,” (id. ¶ 5). The rest of the complaint alleges the
defendants’ invitation to collude and its purported effect on prices in the national market for truck
rentals. The plaintiff does not set forth any facts about her own transactions, such as what she paid
for her one-way truck rentals or what available competitors’ rates were at the time. Even if U-Haul
had committed an actionable wrong that had a price-raising effect generally on the national market,
the basic facts about the plaintiff’s individual transactions are necessary to judge whether she was in
fact harmed by those general phenomena. Whether she overpaid, and whether such overpayment

was caused by U-Haul’s unrequited attempts to collude with Avis Budget Group, Inc., is left
entirely to conjecture.
The plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In the absence of
“allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)” a valid claim for relief, id. at 557,
the complaint must be dismissed.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge

2