Kleen Products LLC, et al. v. International Paper Company, et al.

Citation:
Nos. 15-2385 & 15-238
Tag(s):
Ruling:
With respect to the central issue of class certification under FRCP 23(a) and (b)(3), the sole contested points relate only to the requirements of predominance and superiority. But since Defendants did not challenge Purchasers’ experts per Daubert and FRE 702, the Court accepted their reports and granted class certification.
Procedural context:
Plaintiff-purchasers filed suit pursuant to the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, seeking damages for alleged overcharges. The District Court below certified a nationwide class of such purchasers under FRCP 23. Defendants International Paper, Georgia-Pacific, and others, brought an interlocutory appeal from that class certification pursuant to Rule 23(f). The 7th Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s decision and therefore AFFIRMED.
Facts:
Plaintiff Purchaser allege that the Defendant companies colluded to restrict the supply of containerboard by cutting capacity, slowing production, taking downtime, idling plants, and restricting inventory; resulting in an increase in the price of containerboard that caused it - and others similarly situated- to pay more for containerboard than they would have otherwise. The named Plaintiff, Kleen Products, asked the District Court to certify class consisting of all persons that purchased containerboard from the Defendants in the relevant period. The Defendants opposed class certification on several grounds, to wit: whether common questions predominate; whether antitrust injury can be proved using a common method; whether the amount of damages can be proved using a common method; and whether a class action is superior.
Judge(s):
Wood, Bauer, Williams

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!

About us in numbers

3061 in the system

2953 Summarized

1 Being Processed