Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


August 11, 2009

IN RE: CHOCOLATE CONFECTIONARY ANTITRUST LITIGATION

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge

THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: ALL CASES

MDL DOCKET NO. 1935

(Judge Conner)

ORDER

AND NOW, this 11th day of August, 2009, upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 633) of the memorandum and order of court (Doc. 582) dated March 4, 2009 (hereinafter "the March 4 order") filed by defendant Cadbury Adams Canada, Inc. ("Cadbury Canada"), and it appearing that Cadbury Canada seeks reconsideration on the grounds that it sells no chocolate products in the United States, (Doc. 591 at 4), has no connection to the U.S. market for chocolate candy, (id. at 5), did not enter a conspiratorial agreement, (id. at 6; Doc. 634 at 6), received no economic benefit from the alleged price-fixing scheme, (Doc. 645 at 4-5), and that plaintiffs' amended complaints fail to state a claim for relief under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), (Doc. 634 at 7-9), and it further appearing that the purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to present newly discovered evidence or to correct manifest errors of law or fact, see Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985), that the court possesses inherent power to reconsider its interlocutory orders "when it is consonant with justice to do so," United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 605 (3d Cir. 1973); Alea N. Am. Ins. Co. v. Salem Masonry Co. 301 F. App'x 119, 121 (3d Cir. 2008), and that a party may not invoke a motion for reconsideration as a means to relitigate matters of disagreement with the court or to raise stale arguments anew, see Abu-Jamal v. Horn, No. Civ. A. 99- 5089, 2001 WL 1609761, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2001); see also Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995) (rejecting litigant's "classic attempt at a 'second bite at the apple'"), and the court concluding that Cadbury Canada previously asserted each of the arguments upon which it seeks reconsideration, that plaintiffs allege that (1) Cadbury Canada "produces and sells chocolate candy bars," (Doc. 418 ¶ 47; see also Doc. 420 ¶ 79; Doc. 422 ¶ 38; Doc. 448 ¶¶ 27-28, 36-37, 42-44, 51-53), (2) it engaged in anticompetitive activity in Canada, (Doc. 418 ¶¶ 98-105; Doc. 420 ¶¶ 107-110; Doc. 422 ¶¶ 70-89; Doc. 448 ¶¶ 108-34), (3) production and distribution systems in the United States and Canada are interdependent upon one another, (Doc. 418 ¶¶ 87-88; Doc. 420 ¶ 92; Doc. 422 ¶¶ 87, 89; Doc. 448 ¶ 107.f), and (4) Cadbury Canada's alleged price-fixing activities facilitated a conspiratorial agreement by all defendants to raise prices in the United States,*fn1 (Doc. 418 ¶¶ 72-74; Doc. 420 ¶¶ 94, 104-06, 112; Doc. 422 ¶¶ 45-57; Doc. 448 ¶¶ 107.e-f, .i), and the court further concluding that such allegations adequately plead a claim under § 1 of the Sherman Act, that Cadbury Canada has not demonstrated that the March 4 order contains an error of law or fact,*fn2 and that its motion for reconsideration merely seeks to relitigate a "point of disagreement between the Court and the litigant," Abu-Jamal, 2001 WL 1609761, at *9; see also Ogden v. Keystone Residence, 226 F. Supp. 2d 588, 606 (M.D. Pa. 2002), it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 633) is DENIED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.