francis m. gregorek (144785) rachele r. … · francis m. gregorek (144785) ... door logistics...

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FRANCIS M. GREGOREK (144785) [email protected] BETSY C. MANIFOLD (182450) [email protected] RACHELE R. RICKERT (190634) [email protected] MARISA C. LIVESARY (223247) [email protected] WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/239-4599 Facsimile: 619/234-4599 MARY JANE FAIT [email protected] PATRICK H. MORAN (270881) [email protected] WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111 Chicago, IL 60603 Attorney for Plaintiff David Schroeder

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID SCHROEDER, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NIPPON YUSEN KABUSHIKI KAISHA; NYK LINE (NORTH AMERICA) INC.; EUKOR CAR CARRIERS, INC.; COMPANIA SUD AMERICANA DE VAPORES, S.A.; KAWASAKI KISEN KAISHA, LTD.; ‘K’ LINE AMERICA, INC.; MITSUI O.S.K. LINES, LTD.; MITSUI O.S.K. BULK SHIPPING (USA), INC.; NISSAN MOTOR CAR CARRIER CO., LTD.; WORLD TRANSPORT CO., LTD.; WORLD LOGISTICS SERVICE (U.S.A.), INC.;

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAWS DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

'13CV1319 DHBH

Case 3:13-cv-01319-H-DHB Document 1 Filed 06/06/13 of 35Case MDL No. 2471 Document 1-8 Filed 06/13/13 Page 1 of 37


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TOYOFUJI SHIPPING CO., LTD.; WALLENIUS LINES, AB; WILH. WILHEMSEN HOLDING, ASA; WILH. WILHELMSEN, ASA; WALLENIUS WILHELMSEN LOGISTICS AMERICAS, LLC; WWL VEHICLE SERVICES AMERICAS INC.; AMERICAN SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS INC.; and AMERICAN AUTO LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )



- 1 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff David Schroeder (“Plaintiff”), for his complaint, allege upon

personal knowledge as to himself and his own actions, and upon information and

belief, including the investigation of counsel, as follows: NATURE OF ACTION

Summary of Material Fact

1. This is an antitrust class action pursuant to section 1 of the Sherman

Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7, and a class action brought pursuant to the laws of California

brought by Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of classes of persons and

entities in California who indirectly purchased from any Defendant or current or

former subsidiary or affiliate, vehicle carrier services for personal use (not resale),

incorporated into the price of the a new vehicle purchased or leased during the

from and including January 2008 through such time as the anticompetitive effects

of Defendants’ conduct ceased (the “Class Period”).

2. Defendants are automotive carriers who transport large numbers of

cars and trucks including agriculture and construction equipment vehicles

(collectively, “Vehicles”) using specialized cargo vessels for transport across water

(“Vehicle Carriers”). Vehicle Carriers use a specialized cargo ship that has the

capacity to set a ramp at dockside, bow and/or stern, and roll on and off most types

of wheeled vehicles. Within the shipping industry, such cargo ships are referred to

as a Roll-on/Roll-off Cargo Vessel or a “RORO or ro-ros” and are used to carry

Vehicles from port to port. “Vehicle Carrier Services” refers to the paid

transportation of Vehicles by RORO. Defendants are: Compania Sud Americana

De Vapores S.A. (“CSAV”); EUKOR Car Carriers, Inc., and American Shipping

and Logistics Inc., (together hereafter “ECC”); Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. (“‘K’

Line”); ‘K’ Line America, Inc. (“‘K’ Line America”); Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.

and Mitsui O.S.K. Bulk Shipping (USA), Inc., (together “MOL”); Nissan Motor

Car Carrier Co., Ltd., World Transport Co., Ltd., and World Logistics Service

(U.S.A.), Inc. (collectively hereafter “Nissan MCC”); Nippon Yusen Kabushiki



- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kaisha (“Nippon Line”); NYK Line (North America), Inc. (“Nippon Line NA”);

Toyofuji Shipping Co., Ltd. (“Toyofuji”); Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics AS

(“WWL”); Wilh. Wilhelmsen Holding, ASA (“WW ASA”); Wallenius

Wilhelmsen Logistics America, LLC and WWL Vehicle Services Americas Inc.

(together “WWL America”); Wallenius Lines, AB (“Wallenius”); and (all as

defined below, and collectively the “Defendants”).

3. The aforementioned Defendants provide, market, and/or sell Vehicle

Carrier Services in California. These providers of Vehicle Carrier Services

globally and in California control over 70% of Vehicle Carrier Services market and

have engaged in a five year-long conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize

Vehicle Carrier Services prices, and allocate the market and customers in

California for Vehicle Carrier Services.

4. On September 12, 2012, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (“JFTC”)

began investigating approximately ten Vehicle Carriers on suspicion of forming a

global cartel to raise the prices of shipping overseas. It has been reported that the

United States Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division (“DOJ”) is investigating

unlawful, anticompetitive conduct amid allegations that Vehicle Carriers have

colluded on prices they charged auto exporters and allocated orders among

themselves despite pressure to cut prices by automakers whose profit margin have

been shrinking since the 2008 global financial crisis. Summary of Claims

5. Defendants and their co-conspirators colluded and conspired to

suppress and eliminate competition in the Vehicle Carrier Services market by

agreeing to fix, stabilize and maintain the prices of, Vehicle Carrier Services in

California. The combination and conspiracy engaged in by the Defendants and

their co-conspirators resulted in unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign

trade and commerce in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7 and

California Unfair Competition statutes.



- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6. As a direct result of the anticompetitive and unlawful conduct alleged

herein, Plaintiff and the Class paid artificially inflated prices for Vehicle Carrier

Services incorporated into the price of a new imported Vehicles purchased or

leased in California during the Class Period, and have thereby suffered antitrust

injury to their business or property. PARTIES

Plaintiff 7. Plaintiff David Schroeder is a California resident who purchased

Vehicle Carrier Services indirectly from one or more Defendants.

Defendants 8. Defendant CSAV is a Chilean company. CSAV, directly and/or

through its subsidiaries provided, marketed and/or sold Vehicle Carrier Services

throughout California, including in this District, during the Class Period.

9. Defendant ECC is a South Korean company. ECC directly and/or

through its subsidiaries provided, marketed and/or sold Vehicle Carrier Services

throughout California, including in this District, during the Class Period. ECC is a

joint venture between Wilh. Wilhelmsen ASA, Wallenius, Hyundai Motor

Company and Kia Motors Corporation.

10. Defendant WW ASA is a Norwegian company. WW ASA, directly

and/or through its subsidiaries, provided, marketed and/or sold Vehicle Carrier

Services throughout California, including in this District, during the Class Period.

11. Defendant WWL is a Norwegian company. WWL, directly and/or

through its subsidiaries, provided, marketed and/or sold Vehicle Carrier Services


12. Defendant Wallenius Lines AB is a Swedish Company. Wallenius

Lines AB, directly and/or through its subsidiaries, provided, marketed and/or sold

Vehicle Carrier Services throughout California, including in this District, during

the Class Period.



- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13. Defendant American Shipping and Logistics group (“ASL”) consists

of several companies, all of which are established on a joint venture basis between

Wilh. Wilhelmsen ASA and Wallenius. All companies in the ASL group are

headquartered in the U.S. and consist of liner service operating companies, ship

owning companies, and logistics services companies. The primary operating

companies in the ASL Group are:

a. American Roll-on Roll-off Carrier, LLC (ARC) is the largest U.S.

Flag ro-ro carrier and the third largest U.S. Flag carrier overall in

international trade. ARC is a U.S. based company owned 50/50 by

Wilh. Wilhelmsen ASA and Wallenius. ARC is the vessel-operating

company in ASL Group, and provides ro-ro liner services in the US -

international trades.

b. Defendant American Auto Logistics, LP (AAL) delivers total door-to-

door logistics solution services, and is the contract service provider to

the U.S. Government under the Global POV Contract . Under this

program, AAL via its global network, transports vehicles and provides

POV storage for military and U.S. government personnel stationed

abroad. It is a resident of California.

14. Defendant Wallienius Wilhemsen Logistics America, LLC is a joint

venture between Wilh. Wilhelmsen ASA and Wallenius established in 1999 and is

a resident of New Jersey. It is an operating company within both the shipping

segment and the logistics segment. It operates most of the Wilh. Wilhelmsen

ASA’s and Wallenius’ owned vessels. The company provides global transportation

services for the automotive, agricultural, mining and construction equipment

industries and its services consist of supply chain management, ocean

transportation, terminal services, inland distribution and technical services.

Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics is the contracting party in customer contracts with

industrial manufacturers for cars, agricultural machinery etc.



- 5 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15. Defendant WW Holding is a Norwegian Company. WW Holding,

directly and/or through its subsidiaries, provided, marketed and/or sold Vehicle

Carrier Services throughout California, including in this District, during the Class

Period. .

16. Defendant ‘K’ Line is a Japanese company. “K” Line directly and/or

through its subsidiaries, marketed and/or sold “Vehicle Carrier Services”


17. Defendant ‘K’ Line America is a wholly owned subsidiary of ‘K’

Line and a resident of New Jersey. ‘K’ Line America provided, marketed and/or

sold “Vehicle Carrier Services” throughout California, including in this District,

during the Class Period.

18. Defendant Mitsui O.S.K. Lines is a Japanese company. It and its

wholly owned subsidiary Defendant Mitsui O.S.K. Bulk Shipping (USA), Inc., a

resident of New Jersey, together directly and/or through their subsidiaries,

provided, marketed and/or sold Vehicle Carrier Services throughout California,

including in this District, during the Class Period.

19. Defendant Nissan Motor Car Carrier Co., Ltd. is a Japanese company.

that directly and/or through its subsidiaries, provided, marketed and/or sold

Vehicle Carrier Services throughout California, including in this District, during

the Class Period.

20. Defendant World Transport Co., Ltd., is a Japan company who serves

as the transporation sales agency business on behalf of Def. Nissan Motor Car

Carrier Co., Ltd., that directly and/or through one or more of its subsidiaries

provided, marketed and/or sold Vehicle Carrier Services throughout California,

including in this District, during the Class Period.

21. Defendant World Logistics Service (U.S.C.), Inc., a wholly owned

subsidiary a of World Transport Co., Ltd and thus, included at all times relevant

herein with Nissan MMC, is a resident of California. Nissan MMC directly and/or



- 6 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

through their subsidiaries, provided, marketed and/or sold Vehicle Carrier Services


22. Defendant Nippon Line is a Japan company. Nippon Line provided,

marketed and/or sold Vehicle Carrier Services throughout California, including in

this District, during the Class Period.

23. Defendant Nippon Line America is a wholly owned subsidiary of

Nippon Line and a resident of New Jersey. Nippon Line America provided,

marketed and/or sold Vehicle Carrier Services throughout California, including in

this District, during the Class Period.

24. Defendant Toyofuji is a Japanese company. Toyofuji, directly and/or

through its subsidiaries, marketed and/or sold Vehicle Carrier Services throughout

California, including in this District, during the Class Period.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

25. This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to the Sherman

Act, the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 26, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337, and it

has supplemental jurisdiction over the California state law claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367.

26. This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)

because sufficient diversity of citizenship exists between parties in this action, the

aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, and there are 100 or more

Class members.

27. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to Section 12 of the Clayton

Act (15 U.S.C § 22), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b), (c), and (d), because a substantial

part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District, a

substantial portion of the affected interstate trade and commerce discussed below

has been carried out in this District, and one or more of the Defendants, are

licensed to do business in, are doing business in, had agents in, or are found or

transact business in California and this District.



- 7 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over the Defendants because

each, either directly or through the ownership and/or control of its subsidiaries,

inter alia: transacted business in the United States, including in this District;

directly or indirectly sold or marketed Vehicle Carrier Services throughout

California, including in this District; had substantial aggregate contacts with the

United States as a whole, including in this District; or were engaged in an illegal

price-fixing conspiracy that was directed at, and had a direct, substantial,

reasonably foreseeable and intended effect of causing injury to, the business or

property of persons and entities residing in, located in, or doing business

throughout California, including in this District. The Defendants also conduct

business in California, including in this District, and they have purposefully

availed themselves of the laws of the United States.

29. The Defendants’ conspiracy and unlawful conduct described herein

adversely affected persons and entities in California who purchased cars for

personal use and not for resale, including Plaintiff and the Class. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

30. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and as a class action

under Rule 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking

damages and equitable and injunctive relief on behalf of the following class (the

“Class”):

All persons and entities in California who indirectly purchased, from any Defendant or any current or former subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator, Vehicle Carrier Services for personal use and not for resale, incorporated into the price of a new Vehicle purchased or leased during the Class Period.

31. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their parent companies,

subsidiaries and affiliates, any co-conspirators, federal governmental entities and

instrumentalities of the federal government, states and their subdivisions, agencies



- 8 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and instrumentalities, and persons who purchased Vehicle Carrier Services

directly.

32. In the last three years, over 4.5 million new cars and trucks were sold

by new car dealerships in California and approximately 70% of those cars were

manufactured by foreign car manufacturers (BMW, VW, Hyundai/Kia, Nissan,

Honda and Toyota). A substantial number of these foreign new cars were

imported into the United States using Vehicle Carrier Services. While Plaintiff

does not know the exact number of the members of the Class, Plaintiff believes

there are (at least) thousands of members in the Class.

33. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the

Class. This is particularly true given the nature of Defendants’ conspiracy, which

was generally applicable to all members of the Class, thereby making appropriate

relief with respect to the Class as a whole. Such questions of law and fact common

to the Class include, but are not limited to:

(a) Whether the Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a

combination and conspiracy among themselves to fix, raise, maintain

or stabilize the prices of Vehicle Carrier Services sold in the United

States;

(b) The identity of the participants of the alleged conspiracy;

(c) The duration of the alleged conspiracy and the acts carried out

by Defendants and their co-conspirators in furtherance of the

conspiracy;

(d) Whether the alleged conspiracy violated the Sherman Act, as

alleged in the First Claim for Relief;

(e) Whether the alleged conspiracy violated California state

statutes, as alleged in the Second and Third Claims for Relief;



- 9 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(f) Whether the conduct of the Defendants and their co-

conspirators, as alleged in this Complaint, caused injury to the

business or property of Plaintiff and the members of the Class;

(g) The effect of the alleged conspiracy on the prices of Vehicle

Carrier Services sold in California during the Class Period;

(h) Whether Plaintiff and members of the Class had any reason to

know or suspect the conspiracy, or any means to discover the

conspiracy;

(i) Whether the Defendants and their co-conspirators fraudulently

concealed the conspiracy’s existence from the Plaintiff and the

members of the Class; and

(j) The appropriate relief for the Class.

34. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the

Class, and Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.

Plaintiff and all members of the Class are similarly affected by Defendants’

wrongful conduct in that they paid artificially inflated prices for Vehicle Carrier

Services purchased indirectly from the Defendants and/or their co-conspirators.

35. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the same common course of conduct

giving rise to the claims of the other members of the Class. Plaintiff’s interests are

coincident with, and not antagonistic to, those of the other members of the Class.

Plaintiff is represented by counsel who are competent and experienced in the

prosecution of antitrust and class action litigation.

36. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, including legal

and factual issues relating to liability and damages.

37. Class action treatment is a superior method for the fair and efficient

adjudication of the controversy, in that, among other things, such treatment will

permit a large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common



- 10 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently and without the unnecessary

duplication of evidence, effort and expense that numerous individual actions would

engender. The benefits of proceeding through the class mechanism, including

providing injured persons or entities with a method for obtaining redress for claims

that it might not be practicable to pursue individually, substantially outweigh any

difficulties that may arise in management of this class action.

38. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the

Class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications, establishing

incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RORO Ships and Market for Vehicle Carrier Services

39. RO/RO ships are vessels designed to carry wheeled cargo, such as

automobiles, trucks, and other wheeled vehicles that can be driven on and off the

ship on their own wheels. This is in contrast to LOLO (Lift-on/Lift-off) vessels

which are used to load and unload cargo. RORO vessels have built-in ramps

which allow the cargo to be efficiently "rolled on" and "rolled off" the vessel when

in port. While smaller ferries that operate across rivers and other short distances

often have built-in ramps, the term RORO is reserved for larger ocean-going

vessels. The ramps and doors may be stern only, or bow and stern for quick

loading. New automobiles that are transported by ship are often moved on a large

type of RORO called a Pure Car Carrier (“PCC”) or Pure Car Truck Carrier

(“PCTC”).

40. Although shipping industry cargo is normally measured by the metric

ton, RORO cargo is typically measured in units of lanes in meters (LIMs). This is

calculated by multiplying cargo length in meters by the number of decks and by its

width in lanes (lane width differs from vessel to vessel and there are several

industry standards). A PCCs’ cargo capacity is measured in car equivalent units

(CEUs).



- 11 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

41. Since 1970 the market for exporting and importing cars has increased

dramatically and the number and type of ROROs has increased. In 1973,

Defendant KKK Line built European Highway, the first PCC, which carried 4,200

automobiles. PCCs are distinctive with a box-like superstructure running the entire

length and breadth of the hull, fully enclosing the cargo. They typically have a

stern ramp and a side ramp for dual loading of thousands of vehicles. These vessels

have a usual speed of 16 knots at “eco-speed.”

42. Defendants and their co-conspirators provided Vehicle Carrier

Services to foreign car manufacturers for transportation of Vehicles sold in

California by transporting cars manufactured elsewhere for export to and sale in

California.

43. Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class purchased Vehicle

Carrier Service indirectly from one or more of the Defendants by virtue of his

purchase or lease of a new Vehicle in California during the Class Period.

44. Defendants include the five shipping lines that control about 70

percent of the global market for carrying cars.

45. The annual market for Vehicle Carrier Services in the United States is

nearly a billion dollars.

The Market Structure and Characteristics Support the Existence of a Conspiracy

46. The structure and other characteristics of the market for Vehicle

Carrier Services have made collusion among Defendants particularly attractive.

Specifically, the Vehicle Carrier Services market: (1) is highly concentrated; (2)

has high barriers to entry; (3) is highly interchangeable; (4) is rife with

opportunities to meet and conspire; and (5) has excess capacity. 1. The Market for Vehicle Carriers Is Highly Concentrated

47. A concentrated market is more susceptible to collusion and other

anticompetitive practices. According to a September 6, 2012 Bloomberg article,



- 12 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

citing Nomura Holdings Inc., Defendants controlled over 70 percent of the Vehicle

Carrier Services market during the Class Period. 2. The Market for Vehicle Carrier Services Has High Barriers to Entry

48. There are substantial monetary and industry barriers that preclude or

reduce entry into the Vehicle Carrier Services market. Highly specialized

equipment and industry knowledge are required such as RORO cargo ships,

purposely built as car carriers. These characteristics restrict the use of the ships to

the Vehicle Carrier Services market.

49. A new entrant into the business would face costly and lengthy start-up

costs, including multi-million dollar costs associated with manufacturing or

acquiring a fleet of Vehicle Carriers and other equipment, fuel, transportation and

distribution infrastructure and skilled labor. It is estimated that the capital cost of a

RORO is at least $95 million.1 Therefore, Vehicle Carrier Services market

involves economies of scale and scope which present barriers to entry. Vehicle

Carrier Services also require the establishment of customer routes based on long

established relationships with foreign car manufacturers and with highly unionized

ports in California. Well-established routes and long term business relationships

creates an additional barrier to entry.

50. Defendants also own related shipping or transportation businesses

they can utilize to provide additional services to clients, such as the operation of

dedicated shipping terminals and inland transportation in California. 3. There is Inelasticity of Demand for Vehicle Carrier Services

51. “Elasticity” is a term used to describe the sensitivity of supply and

demand to changes in one or the other. A global Vehicle Carrier Services cartel, as

alleged here, profits from raising prices above competitive levels because demand

for Vehicle Carrier Services is inelastic. Normally, increased prices would result

1 Asaf Ashar, Marine Highways’ New Direction, J. OF COM. 38 (Nov. 21 2011).



- 13 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

in declining sales, revenues, and profits as customers purchased substitute products

or declined to buy altogether. However, the inelastic demand for the Vehicle

Carrier Services facilitates collusion, allowing Defendants to raise their prices

without triggering customer substitution and lost sales revenue.

52. Vehicle Carrier Services are inelastic because a RORO is the only

ocean vessel that has the carrying capacity for a large number of Vehicles and

foreign car manufacturers must employ Vehicle Carrier Services to transport their

vehicles to California, regardless of whether prices are kept at supra-competitive

levels. There is simply no substitution. 4. The Services Provided by Vehicle Carriers Are Interchangeable

53. Defendants’ Vehicle Carrier Services are similar and, hence,

interchangeable making it easier to unlawfully agree on the price for and allocation

of transportation services and to effectively collude to set prices. These factors

make it easier to form an unlawful cartel.

54. Defendants’ Vehicle Carrier Services are so similar that Vehicle

Carrier Service customers make decisions based primarily on price, which further

facilitate Defendants’ conspiracy by making coordination on price much simpler.

55. Pricing for Vehicle Carrier Services (per vehicle) remained relatively

flat from 2001 to 2006. In 2001, the per vehicle price was approximately $301.30,

while in 2006 the per vehicle price was $305.79, an increase of less than 2%.

Beginning just prior to the Class Period, the price of Vehicle Carrier Services has

increased by 23% and has far outpaced any increase in demand during the Class

Period.

56. In the absence of an unlawful price-fixing conspiracy, according to

the laws of supply and demand, prices would not increase at a rate greater than the

rate of demand, yet that is exactly what happened in the Vehicle Carrier Services

market during the Class Period and has triggered investigations by JFTC, the DOJ,

and other international antitrust commissions.



- 14 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5. Ample Opportunities to Meet and Conspire 57. Defendants attended industry events where they have had the

opportunity to meet and collude as to pricing. Trade shows for shipping

companies around the globe, include the Breakbulk conferences2 and the biennial

RO/RO trade show in Europe.

58. Defendants KKK Line and Nippon Line are also members of the

Transpacific Stabilization Agreement (TSA), which consists of “major ocean

container shipping lines that carry cargo from Asia to ports and inland points in the

U.S.” See “About TSA” at http://www.tsacarriers.org/about.html available as of

(June 6 2013). The TSA Forum provides an opportunity to meet, exchange market

information, and jointly conduct market research and to purportedly develop

voluntary, non-binding guidelines for rates and charges.

59. Defendants KKK Line, Nippon Line, and MOL have already been

fined by the DOI, JFTC, EC and various other antitrust commissions for their roles

in a conspiracy to fix air freight forwarding fees across several continents.

60. Defendants routinely enter into joint “vessel sharing” or “space

charter” agreements and are the majority of all agreements registered with the

Federal Maritime Commission (“FMC”). These agreements provide an

opportunity for Defendants to discuss Vehicle shipping markets, routes, and rates

and engage in illegal price fixing and bid rigging conspiracies. 6. The Market for Vehicle Carrier Services Has Excess Capacity

2 Breakbulk Magazine provides its readers with project cargo, heavy lift and Rory logistics intelligence including news, trending, data and metrics. Breakbulk Magazine’s global events include Breakbulk Transportation Conferences & Exhibitions, which “are the largest international events focused on traditional breakbulk logistics, heavy-lift transportation and project cargo trade issues.” The conferences provide opportunities to “meet with specialized cargo carriers, ports, terminals, freight forwarders, heavy equipment transportation companies and packers.” See: http://www.breakbulk.comfbreakbulk-global-events/available as of (June 6, 2013).



- 15 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

61. While the capacity of Vehicle Carriers to transport cars has increased

since 2007, the utilization rate of Vehicle Carriers Services has fallen, and

remained stable at a rate of approximately 83% since 2010. Therefore, the market

for Vehicle Carrier Services has operated in a state of excess capacity since 2008.

The tables below demonstrate that.



- 16 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

62. In the face of such excess capacity, Defendants have lowered a

carrier’s speed to conserve on fuel costs (referred to as “eco-speed”). By using

“eco-speed,” Defendants are able to use more ships at the same time, thereby

decreasing capacity and creating artificial capacity shortages.

63. Defendants’ actions of using “eco-speed” and vessel sharing are

colluding to reduce output in order to increase prices despite overcapacity in the

Vehicle Carrier Services market. By acting in concert pursuant to their conspiracy,

Defendants decreased the availability of Vehicle Carrier Services in the market,

which caused prices to rise artificially during the Class Period.

64. Defendants’ practices of eco-speeding and vessel sharing represent

concerted, collusive efforts to reduce output in order to increase prices despite

overcapacity in the Vehicle Carrier Services market. By acting in concert,

Defendants decreased the availability of Vehicle Carrier Services in the market,

which caused prices to rise artificially during the Class Period. Collusion in the Vehicle Carrier Services Market

65. There is strong evidence of Defendants’ collusion in raising and fixing

prices and allocating markets. Such evidence includes: (1) Defendants raising

prices at a rate that exceeded demand; (2) Defendants previously colluded in the

freight forwarding services and paid substantial fines as a result; and (3) the DOJ,

JFTC and other antitrust commissions are investigating Defendants’ price fixing

conduct in the Vehicle Carrier Services industry. 1. Defendants Raised Prices at a Rate that Far Exceeded Demand

66. Prices for Vehicle Carrier Services have been generally increasing

since 2006 from $320 in 2000 to over $400 in 2012. 2. Defendants Previously Colluded in Different Markets

67. In 2007, the DOJ launched an investigation into price fixing among

international air freight forwarders, including Defendants’ affiliates and

subsidiaries.



- 17 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

68. On September 30, 2011, MOL Logistics (Japan) Co., Ltd. plead guilty

to Sherman Act violations as a result of the DOJ”s freight forwarding

investigation, resulting in more than $120 million in criminal fines to date. MOL

Logistics (Japan) Co. Ltd., conspired by participating in meetings, conversations,

and communications to discuss certain components of freight forwarding service

fees to be charged on air cargo shipments from Japan to the United States; and by

agreeing on one or more components of the freight forwarding service fees to be

charged on air cargo shipments from Japan to the United States.

69. On March 8, 2013, the DOJ announced that “K” Line Logistics, Ltd.

and Yusen Logistics Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of Defendant Nippon Line, agreed to

pay criminal fines of $3,501,246 and $15,428,207, respectively, for their roles in a

conspiracy to fix certain freight forwarding fees for cargo shipped by air from the

United States to Japan.

70. On March 19, 2009, the JFTC ordered 12 companies to pay $94.7

million in fines for violations of the Japanese Antimonopoly Act (“AMA”).

Included among the 12 companies were “K” Line Logistics, Ltd., a subsidiary of

Defendant KKK Line, Yusen Air & Sea Services Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of

Defendant KKK Line, and MOL Logistics (Japan) Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of

Defendant MOL.

71. The JFTC concluded that the companies had, over a five-year period,

met and agreed to, among other things, the amount of fuel surcharges, security

charges, and explosive inspection charges that they would charge their

international air freight forwarding customers. The agreements were, according to

the JFTC, negotiated at meetings of the Japan Aircargo Forwarders Association.

72. On March 28, 2012, the European Commission (“EC”) fined 14

international groups of companies a total of $219 million, including Yusen Shenda

Air & Sea Service (Shanghai) Ltd., a subsidiary of Defendant Nippon Line.

According to the EC, “[i]n four distinct cartels, the cartelists established and



- 18 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

coordinated four different surcharges and charging mechanisms, which are

component elements 4 of the final price billed to customers for these services.”

3. DOJ and JFTC Are Investigating Price-Fixing in the Vehicle Carrier Services Market

73. On September 6, 2012, the JFTC executed raids at the Japanese

offices of Nippon Line, MOL, KKK Line, WWL, and ECC as part of an

investigation into price-fixing of Vehicle Carrier Services in violation of Japan’s

Antimonopoly Act.

74. On September 7, 2012, Defendant WW ASA also reported that it had

received a request for information and that its subsidiaries, WWL and ECC had

been visited as part of an investigation related to the Japan Antimonopoly Act.

ECC also received requests for information from the DOJ. According to

Defendant WW ASA, the purpose of the requests “is to ascertain whether there is

evidence of any infringement of competition law related to possible price

cooperation between carriers and allocation of customers.”

75. The Japanese Business Daily reported that the shipping affiliates of

Toyota Motor Corp. and Nissan Motor Co. were also among the companies raided

by the JFTC. Toyota Motor Corp’s shipping affiliate is Defendant ToyoFuji, and

Nissan Motor Co.’s affiliate is Defendant Nissan MMC.

76. Defendant CSAV issued a statement in mid-September revealing that

its employees had received subpoenas from the DOJ as follows: “[t]he

investigation seeks to inquire into the existence of antitrust law violations related

to cooperation agreements on prices and allocation of clients between car carriers.”

77. Shortly after the September 2012 raids, the DOJ confirmed that in

coordination with the European Commission and the JFTC “[t]he antitrust division

is investigating the possibility of anticompetitive practices involving the ocean

shipping of cars, trucks, construction equipment, and other products.”

///



- 19 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PLAINTIFF AND THE CLASS SUFFERED ANTITRUST INJURY

78. The Defendants’ price-fixing conspiracy had the following effects,

among others:

(a) Price competition has been restrained or eliminated with respect

to Vehicle Carrier Services;

(b) The prices of Vehicle Carrier Services have been fixed, raised,

maintained, or stabilized at artificially inflated levels;

(c) Indirect purchasers of Vehicle Carrier Services have been

deprived of free and open competition; and

(d) Indirect purchasers of Vehicle Carrier Services paid artificially

inflated prices.

79. During the Class Period, Plaintiff and the members of the Class paid

supra-competitive prices for Vehicle Carrier Services. Car manufacturers and

automobile dealers passed on the inflated charges to purchasers and lessees of new

Vehicles in California. Those overcharges have unjustly enriched Defendants.

80. The market for Vehicle Carrier Services and the market for Vehicles

are inextricably linked and intertwined because the market for Vehicle Carrier

Services exists to serve the new car market in California. The demand for new

cars creates the demand for Vehicle Carrier Services. According to a July 19, 2012

Union Tribune news article, California auto dealers sold 1.3 million new cars in

California in 2011 alone. According to the California New Car Dealership

Association (“NCDA”) 1.6 million new cars and light trucks were sold in

California in 2012 and the NCDA expects 1.75 million new cars to be sold in

California in 2013. According to NCDA, 69% of these new cars sold were from

foreign car manufacturers.

81. The manufacturer and dealer markets for new cars are subject to

vigorous price competition, have thin net margins, and are therefore at the mercy

of their input costs. Increases in the price of Vehicle Carrier Services leads to



- 20 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

corresponding increases in prices for new Vehicles at the manufacturing and dealer

levels. When downstream distribution markets are highly competitive, as they are

in the case of new cars, overcharges are passed through to ultimate consumers,

such as the indirect-purchaser Plaintiff and the Class.

82. Hence, the inflated prices of Vehicle Carrier Services in new cars

resulting from Defendants’ price-fixing conspiracy have been passed on to Plaintiff

and the other members of the Class in California by manufacturers and dealers.

83. The purpose of the conspiratorial conduct of the Defendants and their

co-conspirators was to raise, fix, rig or stabilize the price of Vehicle Carrier

Services and, as a direct and foreseeable result, the price of new Vehicles shipped

by Vehicle Carriers.

84. The precise amount of the overcharge impacting the prices of new

Vehicles shipped by Vehicle Carrier can be measured and quantified. Commonly

used and well-accepted economic models can be used to measure both the extent

and the amount of the supra-competitive charge passed-through the chain of

distribution. Thus, the economic harm to Plaintiff and the members of the Class

can be quantified.

85. By reason of the alleged violations of the antitrust laws and other laws

alleged herein, Plaintiff and the members of the Class have sustained injury to their

businesses or property, having paid higher prices for Vehicle Carrier Services than

they would have paid in the absence of the Defendants’ illegal contract,

combination, or conspiracy, and, as a result, have suffered damages in an amount

presently undetermined. This is an antitrust injury of the type that the antitrust laws

were meant to punish and prevent.

PLAINTIFF’ CLAIMS ARE NOT BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

86. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth above.

87. Plaintiff and members of the Class had no knowledge of the



- 21 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

combination or forth therein, until shortly before the filing of this Complaint.

Plaintiff and members of the Class did not discover, and could not have discovered

through the exercise of reasonable diligence, the existence of the conspiracy

alleged herein any earlier than September 6, 2012, the date the JFTC announced

raids of certain Defendants’ offices for their role in the criminal price-fixing

conspiracy alleged herein.

88. Plaintiff and members of the Class are consumers who had no direct

contact or interaction with the Defendants, and had no means from which they

could have discovered the combination and conspiracy described in this Complaint

before the September 6, 2012 raids.

89. No information in the public domain was available to Plaintiff and

members of the Class prior to the announced raids on September 6, 2012 that

suggested that the Defendants were involved in a criminal conspiracy to fix the

price charged for Vehicle Carrier Services. Plaintiff and members of the Class

through the exercise of due diligence had no means of obtaining any facts or

information concerning any aspect of Defendants’ dealings with OEMs or other

direct purchasers, much less the fact that they had engaged in the combination and


90. For these reasons, the statute of limitations as to Plaintiff and the

Class’s claims did not begin to run, and has been tolled with respect to the claims

that Plaintiff and members of the Class have alleged in this Complaint. Fraudulent Concealment Tolled the Statute of Limitations

91. In the alternative, the statute of limitations is tolled by the doctrine of

fraudulent concealment. Prior to September 6, 2012, JFTC announced raids of

certain Defendants’ offices for their role in the criminal price-fixing conspiracy,

Plaintiff and members of the Class were unaware of Defendants’ unlawful conduct,

and did not know before then that they were paying supra-competitive prices for

Vehicle Carrier Services throughout the United States and California during the



- 22 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Class Period. No actual or constructive information was made available to Plaintiff

and members of the Class.

92. The affirmative acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, were wrongfully

concealed and carried out in a manner that precluded detection. Defendants met

and communicated in secret and agreed to keep the facts about their collusive

conduct from being discovered by any member of the public or by the direct

purchasers with whom they did business.

93. Because the alleged conspiracy was both self-concealing and

affirmatively concealed by Defendants and their co-conspirators, Plaintiff and

members of the Class had no knowledge of the alleged conspiracy, or of any facts

or information that would have caused a reasonably diligent person to investigate

whether a conspiracy existed, until September 6, 2012, when the JFTC announced

raids of certain Defendants’ offices for their role in the criminal price-fixing


94. For these reasons, the statute of limitations applicable to Plaintiff’ and

the Class’s claims were tolled and did not begin to run until September 6, 2012. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act


96. Defendants and unnamed conspirators entered into and engaged in a

contract, combination, or conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade in violation

of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1).

97. The acts done by each of the Defendants as part of, and in furtherance

of, their contract, combination, or conspiracy were authorized, ordered, or done by

their officers, agents, employees, or representatives while actively engaged in the

management of Defendants’ affairs.

98. During the Class Period, Defendants and their co-conspirators entered

into a continuing agreement, understanding and conspiracy in restraint of trade to



- 23 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

artificially fix, raise, stabilize, and control prices for Vehicle Carrier Services,

thereby creating anticompetitive effects.

99. The anticompetitive acts were intentionally directed at the United

States market for Vehicle Carrier Services and had a substantial and foreseeable

effect on interstate commerce by raising and fixing prices for Vehicle Carrier

Services throughout the United States.

100. The conspiratorial acts and combinations have caused unreasonable

restraints in the market for Vehicle Carrier Services.

101. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and other

similarly situated indirect purchasers in the Class who purchased Vehicle Carrier

Services have been harmed by being forced to pay inflated, supra-competitive

prices for Vehicle Carrier Services.

102. In formulating and carrying out the alleged agreement, understanding

and conspiracy, Defendants and their co-conspirators did those things that they

combined and conspired to do, including but not limited to the acts, practices and

course of conduct set forth herein.

103. Defendants’ conspiracy had the following effects, among others:

(a) Price competition in the market for Vehicle Carrier Services has

been restrained, suppressed, and/or eliminated in the United States;

(b) Prices for Vehicle Carrier Services provided by Defendants and

their co-conspirators have been fixed, raised, maintained, and

stabilized at artificially high, non-competitive levels throughout the

United States; and

(c) Plaintiff and members of the Class who purchased Vehicle

Carrier Services indirectly from Defendants and their co-conspirators

have been deprived of the benefits of free and open competition.

104. Plaintiff and members of the Class have been injured and will

continue to be injured in their business and property by paying more for Vehicle



- 24 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Carrier Services purchased indirectly from Defendants and the co-conspirators than

they would have paid and will pay in the absence of the conspiracy.

105. The alleged contract, combination, or conspiracy is a per se violation

of the federal antitrust laws.

106. Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to an injunction against

Defendants, preventing and restraining the violations alleged herein. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violations of California Business and Professions Code §§ 16700 et seq.


108. During the Class Period, Defendants and their co-conspirators

engaged in a continuing contract, combination or conspiracy with respect to the

provision of Vehicle Carrier Services in unreasonable restraint of trade and

commerce and in violation of California Business and Professions Code §§ 16700

et seq.

109. The contract, combination, or conspiracy consisted of an agreement

among the Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix, raise, inflate, stabilize,

and/or maintain at artificially supra-competitive prices for Vehicle Carrier Services

and to allocate customers for Vehicle Carrier Services in California.

110. In formulating and effectuating this conspiracy, Defendants and their

co-conspirators performed acts in furtherance of the combination and conspiracy,

including:

(a) participating in meetings and conversations among themselves

in the United States and elsewhere during which they agreed to price

Vehicle Carrier Services at certain levels, and otherwise to fix,

increase, inflate, maintain, or stabilize effective prices paid by

Plaintiff and members of the Damages Class with respect to Vehicle

Carrier Services provided in California;



- 25 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(b) allocating customers and markets for Vehicle Carrier Services

provided in California in furtherance of their agreements; and

(c) participating in meetings and conversations among themselves

in the United States and elsewhere to implement, adhere to, and police

the unlawful agreements they reached.

111. Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in the actions described

above for the Purpose of carrying out their unlawful agreements to fix, increase,

maintain, or stabilize prices and to allocate customers with respect to Vehicle

Carrier Services.

112. Defendants’ anticompetitive acts described above were knowing,

willful and constitute violations or flagrant violations of California Business and

Professions Code §§ 16700 et seq.

113. During the Class Period, Defendants and their co-conspirators entered

into and engaged in a continuing unlawful trust in restraint of the trade and

commerce described above in violation of Section 16720 of the California

Business and Professions Code. Defendants, and each of them, have acted in

violation of Section 16720 to fix, raise, stabilize, and maintain prices of, and

allocate markets for, Vehicle Carrier Services at supra-competitive levels.

114. The aforesaid violations of Section 16720 of the California Business

and Professions Code consisted, without limitation, of a continuing unlawful trust

and concert of action among the Defendants and their co-conspirators, the

substantial terms of which were to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the prices of,

and to allocate markets for, Vehicle Carrier Services.

115. The combination and conspiracy alleged herein has had, inter alia, the

following effects: price competition in the provision of Vehicle Carrier Services

has been restrained, suppressed, and/or eliminated in the State of California; prices

for Vehicle Carrier Services provided by Defendants and their co-conspirators

have been fixed, raised, stabilized, and pegged at artificially high, non-competitive



- 26 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

levels in the State of California and throughout the United States; and those who

purchased Vehicle Carrier Services directly or indirectly from Defendants and their

co-conspirators have been deprived of the benefit of free and open competition.

116. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct,

Plaintiff and members of the Class have been injured in their business and property

in that they paid more for Vehicle Carrier Services than they otherwise would have

paid in the absence of Defendants’ unlawful conduct. As a result of Defendants’

violation of Section 16720 of the California Business and Professions Code,

Plaintiff and members of the Class seek treble damages and their cost of suit,

including a reasonable attorney’s fees, pursuant to Section 16750(a) of the

California Business and Professions Code. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violations of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.


118. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair,

unconscionable, deceptive or fraudulent acts or practices in violation of California

Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

119. During the Class Period, Defendants marketed, sold, or distributed

Vehicle Carrier Services in California, and committed and continue to commit acts

of unfair competition, as defined by Sections 17200 et seq. of the California

Business and Professions Code, by engaging in the acts and practices specified

above.

120. This claim is instituted pursuant to Sections 17203 and 17204 of the

California Business and Professions Code, to obtain restitution from these

Defendants for acts, as alleged herein, that violated Section 17200 of the California

Business and Professions Code, commonly known as the Unfair Competition Law.

121. The Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein violated Section 17200.

The acts, omissions, misrepresentations, practices and non-disclosures of



- 27 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants, as alleged herein, constituted a common, continuous, and continuing

course of conduct of unfair competition by means of unfair, unlawful, and/or

fraudulent business acts or practices within the meaning of California Business and

Professions Code, Section 17200, et seq., including, but not limited to, the

following: (1) the violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as set forth above;

(2) the violations of Section 16720, et seq., of the California Business and

Professions Code, set forth above;

122. Defendants’ acts, omissions, misrepresentations, practices, and non-

disclosures, as described above, whether or not in violation of Section 16720, et

seq., of the California Business and Professions Code, and whether or not

concerted or independent acts, are otherwise unfair, unconscionable, unlawful or

fraudulent;

123. Defendants’ acts or practices are unfair to purchasers of Vehicle

Carrier Services (or Vehicles transported by them) in the State of California within

the meaning of Section 17200, California Business and Professions Code; and

124. Defendants’ acts and practices are fraudulent or deceptive within

the meaning of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code.

125. Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to full restitution

and/or disgorgement of all revenues, earnings, profits, compensation, and benefits

that may have been obtained by Defendants as a result of such business acts or

practices.

126. The illegal conduct alleged herein is continuing and there is no

indication that Defendants will not continue such activity into the future.

127. The unlawful and unfair business practices of Defendants, and each

of them, as described above, have caused and continue to cause Plaintiff and the

members of the Class to pay supra-competitive and artificially-inflated prices for

Vehicle Carrier Services (or Vehicles transported by them). Plaintiff and the



- 28 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

members of the Class suffered injury in fact and lost money or property as a result

of such unfair competition.

128. The conduct of Defendants as alleged in this Complaint violates

Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code.

129. As alleged in this Complaint, Defendants and their co-conspirators

have been unjustly enriched as a result of their wrongful conduct and by

Defendants’ unfair competition. Plaintiff and the members of the Class are

accordingly entitled to equitable relief including restitution and/or disgorgement of

all revenues, earnings, profits, compensation, and benefits that may have been

obtained by Defendants as a result of such business practices, pursuant to the

California Business and Professions Code §§ 17203 and 17204. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that:

A. The Court determine that this action may be maintained as a class

action under Rule 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

and direct that reasonable notice of this action, as provided by Rule 23(c)(2) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, be given to each and every member of the Class;

B. That the unlawful conduct, contract, conspiracy, or combination

alleged herein be adjudged and decreed:

(a) An unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce in violation of

Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

(b) A per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; and

(c) An unlawful combination, trust, agreement, understanding

and/or concert of action in violation of the California state statutes as

set forth herein.

C. Plaintiff and the members of the Class recover damages, to the

maximum extent allowed under such laws, and that a joint and several judgment in



- 29 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

favor of Plaintiff and the members of the Class be entered against Defendants in an

amount to be trebled to the extent such laws permit;

D. Plaintiff and the members of the Class recover damages, to the

maximum extent allowed by such laws, in the form of restitution and/or

disgorgement of profits unlawfully gained from them;

E. Defendants, their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees and

other officers, directors, partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other

persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf or in concert with them, be

permanently enjoined and restrained from in any manner continuing, maintaining

or renewing the conduct, contract, conspiracy, or combination alleged herein, or

from entering into any other contract, conspiracy, or combination having a similar

purpose or effect, and from adopting or following any practice, plan, program, or

device having a similar purpose or effect;

F. Plaintiff and the members of the Class be awarded restitution,

including disgorgement of profits Defendants have obtained as a result of their acts

of unfair competition and acts of unjust enrichment;

G. Plaintiff and the members of the Class be awarded pre- and post-

judgment interest as provided by law, and that such interest be awarded at the

highest legal rate from and after the date of service of this Complaint;

H. Plaintiff and the members of the Class recover their costs of suit,

including reasonable attorneys’ fees, as provided by law; and

I. Plaintiff and members of the Class have such other and further relief

as the case may require and the Court may deem just and proper.

///

///

///

///

///



- 30 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Respectfully Submitted,

DATED: June 6, 2013 WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP FRANCIS M. GREGOREK BETSY C. MANIFOLD RACHELE R. RICKERT MARISA C. LIVESAY

By: /s/Betsy C. Manifold

[email protected]

750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: 619/239-4599 Facsimile: 619/234-4599 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC MARY JANE FAIT PATRICK H. MORAN (270881) 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312/984-0000 Facsimile: 312/984-0001 [email protected] [email protected]



- 31 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP DANIEL W. KRASNER THOMAS H. BURT 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212/545-4600 Facsimile: 312/545-4653 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff David Schroeder

NIPPON:19934.complaint


!"#$$###%&'()#*+,*+- CIVIL COVER SHEET./'#!"#$$#01(12#03('4#5/''6#789#6/'#18:34;76138#0386718'9#/'4'18#8'16/'4#4'<270'#834#5=<<2';'86#6/'#:1218>#789#5'4(10'#3:#<2'7918>5#34#36/'4#<7<'45#75#4'?=14'9#@A#27BC##'D0'<6#75<43(19'9#@A#23072#4=2'5#3:#03=46)##./15#:34;C#7<<43('9#@A#6/'#!=910172#E38:'4'80'#3:#6/'#F816'9#"676'5#18#"'<6';@'4#*GH$C#15#4'?=14'9#:34#6/'#=5'#3:#6/'#E2'4I#3:#E3=46#:34#6/'<=4<35'#3:#181617618>#6/'#01(12#930I'6#5/''6)###(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b)###E3=86A#3:#&'519'80'#3:#J1456#K156'9#L271861:: E3=86A#3:#&'519'80'#3:#J1456#K156'9#M':'89786

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NO.PQ RN#KSNM#EONMPTNS.RON#ES"P"C#F"P#.UP#KOES.RON#OJ#.UP#.&SE.#OJ#KSNM#RNVOKVPM)

###############

(c)###S66348'A5#(Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) #S66348'A5#(If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION#(Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

! * ##F)")#W3('48;'86 ! X #J'9'472#Y='56138 PTF DEF PTF DEF

L271861:: (U.S. Government Not a Party) E161Z'8#3:#./15#"676' ! * ! #* R8034<3476'9#or#L41801<72#L270' ! $ ! $

####3:#[=518'55#R8#./15#"676'

! + ##F)")#W3('48;'86 ! $ #M1('4516A E161Z'8#3:#S836/'4#"676' ! + ! #+ R8034<3476'9#and#L41801<72#L270' ! \ ! \

M':'89786 (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) 3:#[=518'55#R8#S836/'4#"676'

E161Z'8#34#"=@]'06#3:#7 ! X ! #X J34'1>8#N76138 ! ^ ! ^

####J34'1>8#E3=864A

IV. NATURE OF SUIT#(Place an “X” in One Box Only)

CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

! **_#R85=4780' #### PERSONAL INJURY ######PERSONAL INJURY ! ^+\#M4=>#&'276'9#"'1Z=4' ! $++#S<<'72#+`#F"E#*\` ! XH\#J725'#E271;5#S06

! *+_#T7418' ! X*_#S14<278' ! X^\#L'453872#R8]=4A##a ##3:#L43<'46A#+*#F"E#``* ! $+X#b16/947B72 ! $__#"676'#&'7<<346138;'86

! *X_#T122'4#S06 ! X*\#S14<278'#L439=06 ##L439=06#K17@1216A ! ^G_#O6/'4 ##+`#F"E#*\H ! $*_#S86164=56

! *$_#N'>3617@2'#R8564=;'86 ##K17@1216A ! X^H#U'726/#E74', ! $X_#[78I5#789#[78I18>

! *\_#&'03('4A#3:#O('4<7A;'86 ! X+_#S557=26C#K1@'2#c #L/74;70'=61072 PROPERTY RIGHTS ! $\_#E3;;'40'

#c#P8:340';'86#3:#!=9>;'86 ##"2789'4 #L'453872#R8]=4A ! `+_#E3<A41>/65 ! $^_#M'<34676138

! *\*#T'91074'#S06 ! XX_#J'9'472#P;<23A'45d #L439=06#K17@1216A ! `X_#L76'86 ! $H_#&70I'6''4#R8:2='80'9#789

! *\+#&'03('4A#3:#M':7=26'9 ##K17@1216A ! X^`#S5@'5635#L'453872 ! `$_#.479';74I #E344=<6#O4>781Z761385

#"6=9'86#K3785 ! X$_#T7418' ##R8]=4A#L439=06 ! $`_#E385=;'4#E4'916

#%PD02=9'5#V'6'4785- ! X$\#T7418'#L439=06 ##K17@1216A LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ! $G_#E7@2',"76#.V

! *\X#&'03('4A#3:#O('4<7A;'86 ##K17@1216A # PERSONAL PROPERTY ! H*_#J714#K7@34#"67897495 ! `^*#URS#%*XG\::- ! `\_#"'0=4161'5,E3;;39161'5,

#3:#V'6'478d5#['8':165 ! X\_#T3634#V'/102' ! XH_#O6/'4#J47=9 ##S06 ! `^+#[270I#K=8>#%G+X- ##PD0/78>'

! *^_#"630I/329'45d#"=165 ! X\\#T3634#V'/102' ! XH*#.4=6/#18#K'8918> ! H+_#K7@34,T787>';'86 ! `^X#MRbE,MRbb#%$_\%>-- ! `G_#O6/'4#"676=634A#S061385

! *G_#O6/'4#E3864706 #L439=06#K17@1216A ! X`_#O6/'4#L'453872 ##&'2761385 ! `^$#""RM#.162'#eVR ! `G*#S>410=26=472#S065

! *G\#E3864706#L439=06#K17@1216A ! X^_#O6/'4#L'453872 #L43<'46A#M7;7>' ! H$_#&712B7A#K7@34#S06 ! `^\#&"R#%$_\%>-- ! `GX#P8(1438;'8672#T766'45

! *G^#J4780/15' #R8]=4A ! X`\#L43<'46A#M7;7>' ! H\*#J7;12A#789#T'91072 ! `G\#J4''93;#3:#R8:34;76138

! X^+#L'453872#R8]=4A#a #L439=06#K17@1216A ##K'7('#S06 ##S06

#T'91072#T72<470610' ! HG_#O6/'4#K7@34#K161>76138 ! `G^#S4@16476138

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ! HG*#P;<23A''#&'614';'86 FEDERAL TAX SUITS ! `GG#S9;181564761('#L430'9=4'

! +*_#K789#E389';876138 ! $$_#O6/'4#E1(12#&1>/65 Habeas Corpus: #R803;'#"'0=416A#S06 ! `H_#.7D'5#%F)")#L271861:: #S06,&'(1'B#34#S<<'72#3:#

! ++_#J34'0235=4' ! $$*#V3618> ! $^X#S21'8#M'6718'' ##34#M':'89786- #S>'80A#M'015138

! +X_#&'86#K'75'#c#P]'06;'86 ! $$+#P;<23A;'86 ! \*_#T361385#63#V7076' ! `H*#R&"f./149#L746A ! G\_#E385616=61387216A#3:

! +$_#.3465#63#K789 ! $$X#U3=518>, #"'86'80' ##+^#F"E#H^_G #"676'#"676=6'5

! +$\#.346#L439=06#K17@1216A #S003;;39761385 ! \X_#W'8'472

! +G_#S22#O6/'4#&'72#L43<'46A ! $$\#S;'4)#B,M157@12161'5#a ! \X\#M'76/#L'8726A IMMIGRATION

#P;<23A;'86 Other: ! $^+#N76=4721Z76138#S<<21076138! $$^#S;'4)#B,M157@12161'5#a ! \$_#T7897;=5#c#O6/'4 ! $^\#O6/'4#R;;1>476138

#O6/'4 ! \\_#E1(12#&1>/65 #######S061385

! $$`#P9=076138 ! \\\#L41538#E38916138

! \^_#E1(12#M'6718''#a

#E389161385#3:#

#E38:18';'86

V. ORIGIN#(Place an “X” in One Box Only)

! * O41>1872L430''918>

! + &';3('9#:43;"676'#E3=46

! #X &';789'9#:43;S<<'2276'#E3=46

! $ &'185676'9#34&'3<'8'9

! #\ .4785:'44'9#:43;S836/'4#M1564106(specify)

! #^ T=26191564106K161>76138

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

E16'#6/'#F)")#E1(12#"676=6'#=89'4#B/10/#A3=#74'#:1218>#(Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity)Q

#

[41':#9'5041<6138#3:#07=5'Q

VII. REQUESTED IN

COMPLAINT:

! EUPEg#RJ#.UR"#R"#S#CLASS ACTION

FNMP&#&FKP#+XC#J)&)E()L)

DEMAND $ EUPEg#hP"#382A#1:#9';789'9#18#03;<27186Q

JURY DEMAND: ! h'5 ! N3

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)

IF ANY(See instructions):

!FMWP MOEgP.#NFT[P&

MS.P "RWNS.F&P#OJ#S..O&NPh#OJ#&PEO&M

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

&PEPRL.#i STOFN. SLLKhRNW#RJL !FMWP TSW)#!FMWP

DAVID SCHROEDER, on his own behalfand on behalf of all others similarlysituated,

Riverside

Betsy C.ManifoldW olf Haldenstein Alder Freeman & HerzLLP750B Street, Suite 2770, San Diego, CA 92101, 619/239-4599

NIPPON YUSEN KABUSHIKI KAISHA, et al.

15U.S.C.section 1

Violations of Federal Antitrust Laws and California Unfair Competition Laws

06/09/2013 /s/Betsy C.Manifold

'13CV1319 DHBH


!"#$$#&'('45'##%&'()#*!,*+-

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

S=6/3416A#J34#E1(12#E3('4#"/''6

./'#!"#$$#01(12#03('4#5/''6#789#6/'#18:34;76138#0386718'9#/'4'18#8'16/'4#4'<270'5#834#5=<<2';'865#6/'#:1218>5#789#5'4(10'#3:#<2'7918>#34#36/'4#<7<'45#75

4'?=14'9#@A#27BC#'D0'<6#75#<43(19'9#@A#23072#4=2'5#3:#03=46)##./15#:34;C#7<<43('9#@A#6/'#!=910172#E38:'4'80'#3:#6/'#F816'9#"676'5#18#"'<6';@'4#*GH$C#15

4'?=14'9#:34#6/'#=5'#3:#6/'#E2'4I#3:#E3=46#:34#6/'#<=4<35'#3:#181617618>#6/'#01(12#930I'6#5/''6)##E385'?='862AC#7#01(12#03('4#5/''6#15#5=@;166'9#63#6/'#E2'4I#3:

E3=46#:34#'70/#01(12#03;<27186#:12'9)##./'#766348'A#:1218>#7#075'#5/3=29#03;<2'6'#6/'#:34;#75#:3223B5Q

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants.##P86'4#87;'5#%2756C#:1456C#;1992'#1816172-#3:#<271861::#789#9':'89786)##R:#6/'#<271861::#34#9':'89786#15#7#>3('48;'86#7>'80AC#=5'#

382A#6/'#:=22#87;'#34#56789749#7@@4'(1761385)##R:#6/'#<271861::#34#9':'89786#15#78#3::10172#B16/18#7#>3('48;'86#7>'80AC#19'861:A#:1456#6/'#7>'80A#789#

6/'8#6/'#3::10172C#>1(18>#@36/#87;'#789#6162')

(b) County of Residence.##J34#'70/#01(12#075'#:12'9C#'D0'<6#F)")#<271861::#075'5C#'86'4#6/'#87;'#3:#6/'#03=86A#B/'4'#6/'#:1456#2156'9#<271861::#4'519'5#76#6/'#

61;'#3:#:1218>)##R8#F)")#<271861::#075'5C#'86'4#6/'#87;'#3:#6/'#03=86A#18#B/10/#6/'#:1456#2156'9#9':'89786#4'519'5#76#6/'#61;'#3:#:1218>)##%NO.PQ#R8#2789#

0389';876138#075'5C#6/'#03=86A#3:#4'519'80'#3:#6/'#j9':'89786j#15#6/'#23076138#3:#6/'#64706#3:#2789#18(32('9)-

(c) Attorneys.##P86'4#6/'#:14;#87;'C#7994'55C#6'2'</38'#8=;@'4C#789#766348'A#3:#4'0349)##R:#6/'4'#74'#5'('472#766348'A5C#2156#6/';#38#78#76670/;'86C#83618>

18#6/15#5'06138#j%5''#76670/;'86-j)

II. Jurisdiction.##./'#@7515#3:#]=4159106138#15#5'6#:346/#=89'4#&=2'#`%7-C#J)&)E()L)C#B/10/#4'?=14'5#6/76#]=41591061385#@'#5/3B8#18#<2'7918>5)##L270'#78#jej#

18#38'#3:#6/'#@3D'5)##R:#6/'4'#15#;34'#6/78#38'#@7515#3:#]=4159106138C#<4'0'9'80'#15#>1('8#18#6/'#349'4#5/3B8#@'23B)

F816'9#"676'5#<271861::)##%*-#!=4159106138#@75'9#38#+`#F)")E)#*X$\#789#*X$`)##"=165#@A#7>'801'5#789#3::10'45#3:#6/'#F816'9#"676'5#74'#1802=9'9#/'4')

F816'9#"676'5#9':'89786)##%+-#b/'8#6/'#<271861::#15#5=18>#6/'#F816'9#"676'5C#165#3::10'45#34#7>'801'5C#<270'#78#jej#18#6/15#@3D)

J'9'472#?='56138)##%X-#./15#4':'45#63#5=165#=89'4#+`#F)")E)#*XX*C#B/'4'#]=4159106138#7415'5#=89'4#6/'#E385616=6138#3:#6/'#F816'9#"676'5C#78#7;'89;'86#

63#6/'#E385616=6138C#78#706#3:#E38>4'55#34#7#64'76A#3:#6/'#F816'9#"676'5)##R8#075'5#B/'4'#6/'#F)")#15#7#<746AC#6/'#F)")#<271861::#34#9':'89786#039'#67I'5#

<4'0'9'80'C#789#@3D#*#34#+#5/3=29#@'#;74I'9)

M1('4516A#3:#0161Z'85/1<)##%$-#./15#4':'45#63#5=165#=89'4#+`#F)")E)#*XX+C#B/'4'#<7461'5#74'#0161Z'85#3:#91::'4'86#5676'5)##b/'8#[3D#$#15#0/'0I'9C#6/'#

0161Z'85/1<#3:#6/'#91::'4'86#<7461'5#;=56#@'#0/'0I'9. %"''#"'06138#RRR#@'23B; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity

cases.-

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties.##./15#5'06138#3:#6/'#!"#$$#15#63#@'#03;<2'6'9#1:#91('4516A#3:#0161Z'85/1<#B75#1891076'9#7@3(')##T74I#6/15

5'06138#:34#'70/#<41801<72#<746A)

IV. Nature of Suit.##L270'#78#jej#18#6/'#7<<43<4176'#@3D)##R:#6/'#876=4'#3:#5=16#078836#@'#9'6'4;18'9C#@'#5=4'#6/'#07=5'#3:#706138C#18#"'06138#VR#@'23BC#15#

5=::101'86#63#'87@2'#6/'#9'<=6A#02'4I#34#6/'#56761561072#02'4I%5-#18#6/'#S9;181564761('#O::10'#63#9'6'4;18'#6/'#876=4'#3:#5=16)##R:#6/'#07=5'#:165#;34'#6/78#

38'#876=4'#3:#5=16C#5'2'06#6/'#;356#9':18161(')

V. Origin.##L270'#78#jej#18#38'#3:#6/'#51D#@3D'5)

O41>1872#L430''918>5)##%*-#E75'5#B/10/#341>1876'#18#6/'#F816'9#"676'5#91564106#03=465)

&';3('9#:43;#"676'#E3=46)##%+-#L430''918>5#1816176'9#18#5676'#03=465#;7A#@'#4';3('9#63#6/'#91564106#03=465#=89'4#.162'#+`#F)")E)C#"'06138#*$$*)##

b/'8#6/'#<'616138#:34#4';3(72#15#>4786'9C#0/'0I#6/15#@3D)

&';789'9#:43;#S<<'2276'#E3=46)##%X-#E/'0I#6/15#@3D#:34#075'5#4';789'9#63#6/'#91564106#03=46#:34#:=46/'4#706138)##F5'#6/'#976'#3:#4';789#75#6/'#:1218>#

976')

&'185676'9#34#&'3<'8'9)##%$-#E/'0I#6/15#@3D#:34#075'5#4'185676'9#34#4'3<'8'9#18#6/'#91564106#03=46)##F5'#6/'#4'3<'818>#976'#75#6/'#:1218>#976')

.4785:'44'9#:43;#S836/'4#M1564106)##%\-#J34#075'5#64785:'44'9#=89'4#.162'#+`#F)")E)#"'06138#*$_$%7-)##M3#836#=5'#6/15#:34#B16/18#91564106#64785:'45#34#

;=26191564106#2161>76138#64785:'45)

T=26191564106#K161>76138)##%^-#E/'0I#6/15#@3D#B/'8#7#;=26191564106#075'#15#64785:'44'9#1863#6/'#91564106#=89'4#7=6/3416A#3:#.162'#+`#F)")E)#"'06138#*$_H)##

b/'8#6/15#@3D#15#0/'0I'9C#93#836#0/'0I#%\-#7@3(')

VI. Cause of Action.##&'<346#6/'#01(12#5676=6'#914'062A#4'276'9#63#6/'#07=5'#3:#706138#789#>1('#7#@41':#9'5041<6138#3:#6/'#07=5')##Do not cite jurisdictional

statutes unless diversity. #PD7;<2'Q#F)")#E1(12#"676=6'Q#$H#F"E#\\X##[41':#M'5041<6138Q#F87=6/341Z'9#4'0'<6138#3:#07@2'#5'4(10'

VII. Requested in Complaint.##E2755#S06138)##L270'#78#jej#18#6/15#@3D#1:#A3=#74'#:1218>#7#02755#706138#=89'4#&=2'#+XC#J)&)E()L)

M';789)##R8#6/15#5<70'#'86'4#6/'#706=72#932274#7;3=86#@'18>#9';789'9#34#1891076'#36/'4#9';789C#5=0/#75#7#<4'21;1874A#18]=806138)

!=4A#M';789)##E/'0I#6/'#7<<43<4176'#@3D#63#1891076'#B/'6/'4#34#836#7#]=4A#15#@'18>#9';789'9)

VIII. Related Cases.##./15#5'06138#3:#6/'#!"#$$#15#=5'9#63#4':'4'80'#4'276'9#<'8918>#075'5C#1:#78A)##R:#6/'4'#74'#4'276'9#<'8918>#075'5C#185'46#6/'#930I'6#

8=;@'45#789#6/'#0344'5<38918>#]=9>'#87;'5#:34#5=0/#075'5)

Date and Attorney Signature.##M76'#789#51>8#6/'#01(12#03('4#5/''6)


U.S. District CourtSouthern District of California (San Diego)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:13−cv−01319−H−DHB

Schroeder v. Kaisha et alAssigned to: Judge Marilyn L. HuffReferred to: Magistrate Judge David H. BartickCause: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

Date Filed: 06/06/2013Jury Demand: PlaintiffNature of Suit: 410 Anti−TrustJurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff

David Schroederon his own behalf and on the behalf of allothers similarly situated

represented byBetsy Carol ManifoldWolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz750 B StreetSymphony Towers Suite 2770San Diego, CA 92101−5050(619)239−4599Fax: (619)234−4599Email: [email protected] ATTORNEYATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Defendant

Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha

Defendant

NYK Line (North America) Inc.

Defendant

Eukor Car Carriers, Inc.

Defendant

Compania Sud Americana De Vapores,S.A.

Defendant

Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, LTD.

Defendant

'K' Line America, Inc.

Defendant

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, LTD.

Defendant

Mitsui O.S.K. Bulk Shipping (USA),Inc.

Defendant

Nissan Motor Car Carrier Co., LTD

Defendant

World Transport Co., LTD.

Defendant

Case: 3:13-cv-01319-H-DHB As of: 06/13/2013 11:38 AM PDT 1 of 2Case MDL No. 2471 Document 1-8 Filed 06/13/13 of 37

mailto:[email protected]

World Logistics Service (U.S.A.), Inc.

Defendant

Toyofuji Shipping Co., LTD.

Defendant

Wallenius Lines, AB

Defendant

Wilh. Wilhemsen Holding, ASA

Defendant

Wilh. Wilhelmsen, ASA

Defendant

Wallenius Wilhelmsen

Defendant

Logistics Americas, LLC

Defendant

WWL Vehicle Services Americas Inc.

Defendant

American Shipping and Logistics Inc.

Defendant

American Auto Logistics, Inc.

Date Filed # Docket Text

06/06/2013 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants (Filing fee $400 receiptnumber 0974−5981434), filed by David Schroeder.

The new case number is 3:13−cv−1319−H−DHB. Judge Marilyn L. Huff andMagistrate Judge David H. Bartick are assigned to the case. (Manifold,Betsy)(dlg)(av1). (Entered: 06/07/2013)

06/07/2013 2 Summons Issued.Counsel receiving this notice electronically should print this summons andserve it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. (dlg) (av1).(Entered: 06/07/2013)

Case: 3:13-cv-01319-H-DHB As of: 06/13/2013 11:38 AM PDT 2 of 2Case MDL No. 2471 Document 1-8 Filed 06/13/13 of 37

https://ecf.casd.uscourts.gov/doc1/03717896679?caseid=416305&de_seq_num=25&pdf_header=1&pdf_toggle_possible=1

https://ecf.casd.uscourts.gov/doc1/03717896690?caseid=416305&de_seq_num=27&pdf_header=1&pdf_toggle_possible=1

francis m. gregorek (144785) rachele r. … · francis m. gregorek (144785) ... door logistics...

Documents