Legal Opinion
In re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Litigation
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided February 13, 2009No. Civil Action No. 3:03md1542(SRU)PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*83 RULING ON MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
STEFAN R. UNDERHILL, District Judge.
This multidistrict litigation arises out of allegations that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of ethylene propylene diene monomer (“EPDM”) synthetic rubber at artificially high, non-competitive levels in violation of federal antitrust law. The named plaintiffs, a group of EPDM purchasers, seek to certify a class in this antitrust suit on behalf of all *84individuals and entities that purchased EPDM from January 1, 1997 to December 31, 2001. The plaintiffs are seeking injunc-tive…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Basic Inc. v. LevinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Bazemore v. FridaySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Ross v. American Express Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 2010
- In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2010
- In Re RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATIONDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- In re Titanium Dioxide Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2012
- Dial Corp. v. News Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2015
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.