A US District Court denies a motion to dismiss allegations of a price squeeze implemented through the granting of secret rebates to the plaintiff’s customers on the market for resailing of paper bag products (Western Pacific Kraft / Duro Bag)

In Secret Rebate Case, If It Walks Like A Duck, Allegations That It Will Also Quack Are Plausible* On May 24, 2011, United States District Court, Central District of California, denied a motion to dismiss allegations of a "price squeeze" implemented through the granting of secret rebates to the plaintiff’s customers, finding that the complaint stated a plausible claim under California Business and Professions Code section 17045. Drawing on "judicial experience and common sense", District Judge Dean D. Pregerson held that the allegations of the first amended complaint are sufficiently "plausible" on their face to withstand challenges under Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, (2007). Western Pacific Kraft, Inc. v. Duro Bag Manufacturing Company, Case No. CV 10-06017 DDP (SSx),

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • Sheppard Mullin (Los Angeles)

Quotation

Jr. Don T. Hibner, A US District Court denies a motion to dismiss allegations of a price squeeze implemented through the granting of secret rebates to the plaintiff’s customers on the market for resailing of paper bag products (Western Pacific Kraft / Duro Bag), 24 May 2011, e-Competitions Bulletin US Private Enforcement, Art. N° 66593

Visites 86

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues