Portable Power, Inc. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc.

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 DON COPELAND, et al., Case No. 23-cv-02087-PCP

9 Plaintiffs, 10 v.

11 ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants. 12

13 PORTABLE POWER, INC., Case No. 23-cv-02091-PCP

14 Plaintiff,

v. 15

16 ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants. 17

18 KIMBERLY SCHUMAN, et al., Case No. 23-cv-02093-PCP

19 Plaintiffs,

20 v.

21 ENERGIZER HOLDING, INC., et al., Defendants. 22

23 24 ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS 25 In these related antitrust cases, three putative classes of plaintiffs allege that defendant 26 Energizer Holdings, Inc. agreed to give defendant Wal-Mart, Inc. control over the retail prices of 27 Energizer products everywhere the products are sold. Plaintiffs claim this violated Section 1 of the 1 plaintiffs have not adequately pleaded that Energizer and Walmart entered such an agreement, and 2 that even if they had, the complaint does not allege that the agreement harmed competition in a 3 manner that violates…