In Re Tableware Antitrust Litigation

ORDER

Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases allege that defendants May Department Stores Co (“May”) and Federated Department Stores, Inc (“Federated”), which operate department stores across the United States, and defendants Lenox, Inc (“Le-nox”) and Waterford Wedgwood, USA (“Waterford”), both of which produce fine tableware sold in the United States, conspired with one another to fix the price of tableware and boycott Bed, Bath and Beyond, a competitor of May and Federated. Plaintiffs bring suit under section 1 of the Sherman Act principally seeking monetary relief.

Defendants all join in moving pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint (Doc. # 18) (CAC) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Def Mot (Doc. # 23); Joinders (Doc. ## 22, 25). Defendants’ argument is simple: They contend that the CAC contains insufficient factual support for the claimed violations; in particular, defendants contend that the CAC’s factual allegations are no more than eon-clusory statements that defendants violated the Sherman Act.

The standard is familiar: FRCP 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss essentially “test whether a cognizable claim has been…