In re Pool Products Distribution Market Antitrust Litigation

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL DIRECT-PURCHASER PLAINTIFF CASES ORDER AND REASONS

SARAH S. VANCE, District Judge.

Before the Court are defendants’1 motions to dismiss direct purchasers’ antitrust claims.2 For the following reasons, defendants’ motions are granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the Court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ monopolization claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act and plaintiffs’ claim that defendants engaged in a per se illegal boycott under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ attempted…