DuPont Fights Back Against Paint Price-Fixing Class Action Lawsuit

On Nov. 17,  DuPont Co. asked the presiding California federal judge to dismiss a paint price-fixing class action lawsuit, arguing the plaintiffs (also referred to as the indirect purchasers) failed to close claim gaps in their amended complaint. The DuPont class action lawsuit alleges this company and other paint and chemical producers engaged in a price-fixing scheme to fix the price of the chemical titanium dioxide.

In September, U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman had dismissed several claims brought against DuPont in this paint price-fixing class action lawsuit, including state law claims by plaintiffs that did not reside in the named states and allegedly did not buy the products involved in this DuPont class action lawsuit.

According to the DuPont paint-pricing class action lawsuit, this company and other chemical manufacturers claim that indirect purchasers have not fully alleged injuries from antitrust practices and do not fulfill requirements to merit Class certification.

In their motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit, DuPont argues, “Plaintiffs’ amendment does not sufficiently remedy the flaws in the [first amended complaint] and thus should likewise be dismissed. Plaintiffs’ allegations remain so vague and conclusory that the highly attenuated link between their purported injuries and any act of defendants is insufficient to support either plaintiffs’ Article III or antitrust standing.”

The plaintiffs submitted their amended complaint last month after Judge Freeman found that the indirect purchasers could not allege state specific claims in 32 different states named in this paint price-fixing class action lawsuit. In the revised DuPont paint price-fixing class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs specified that the paint products in question are “architectural coatings” in order to narrow the scope of the complaint.

However, according to DuPont, this is still a very broad and vague definition, as thousands of products that contain titanium dioxide or concentrations of the chemical can be classified under the term “architectural coatings.”

In March of last year, the plaintiffs filed this paint price-fixing class action lawsuit against DuPont, Huntsman International LLC, Kronos Worldwide Inc. and Cristal USA Inc. alleging these named companies have been manipulating the price of titanium dioxide since 2002. The plaintiffs further claim DuPont and its competitors held secret meetings to exchange commercial information each companies sales, supply, pricing, and production with alleged intent of increasing cost of substances like titanium dioxide.

This is not the first time DuPont, Cristal, and Kronos have been accused of paint price-fixing. In 2010, consumers filed a similar antitrust lawsuit in Maryland federal court concerning the alleged price-fixing of titanium dioxide. After three years of litigation, DuPont and other chemical manufacturers agreed to a class action settlement, for which DuPont paid $72 million, Cristal paid $50 million, and Kronos forked over $35 million.

As for this California based paint price-fixing class action lawsuit, the court has yet to make a decision on the future of this case. However, DuPont, Cristal, and Kronos still argue the plaintiffs fail to meet pleading standards for each state’s anticompetitive injury laws.

The plaintiffs and Class are represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates, Sandra Cuneo of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, and Don Barrett and Charles Barrett.

The DuPont Paint Price-Fixing Class Action Lawsuit is Los Gatos Mercantile Inc., et al. v. DuPont Co., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-01180, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.