Snow

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MISTY SNOW, et al., Case No. 21-cv-03269-VC

Plaintiffs,

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER

v. GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING

IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS;

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

Defendant. Re: Dkt. Nos. 65,

The plaintiffs bring a series of antitrust challenges against Align—the manufacturer of Invisalign-brand clear dental aligners. Align moved to dismiss the complaint and strike some of its allegations. An accompanying ruling addresses the more difficult questions raised by the motions. The remainder of the issues are discussed here. Section 2 Claims: The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The sufficiency of most of the plaintiffs’ allegations were tested, and upheld, in a related case. See Simon & Simon, PC v. Align Technology, Inc., 533 F. Supp. 3d 904 (N.D. Cal. 2021). Align rightfully does not attempt to relitigate its prior arguments. Instead, it raises two technical challenges unique to this case. Neither prevails. 1. Align argues that the plaintiffs do not have standing to seek injunctive relief. To…