Legal Opinion
In re Pool Products Distribution Market Antitrust Litigation
District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Decided May 24, 2013No. MDL 2328PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL INDIRECT-PURCHASER PLAINTIFF CASES ORDER AND REASONS
SARAH S. VANCE, District Judge.
Before the Court are defendants’1 motions to dismiss indirect-purchaser plaintiffs’ state law claims.2 For the following reasons, defendants’ motions are granted in part and denied in part.
I. Background
This is an antitrust case that direct-purchaser plaintiffs (DPPs) and indirect-purchaser plaintiffs (IPPs) filed against Pool and Manufacturer Defendants. On April 11, 2013, the Court issued a ruling on the federal law claims brought by DPPs.3 The Court granted defendants’ motion to…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Jones v. BockSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of CarpentersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Illinois Brick Co. v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig.District Court, E.D. Illinois · 2017
- In re Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2017
- In re EpipenDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2018
- IN RE: FRAGRANCE INDIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATIONDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2025
- OUR OWN CANDLE COMPANY, INC. v. GIVAUDAN S.A.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2025
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.