Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

10-2196 - In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
10-2196 - In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation
September 15, 2011
PDF | More
Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding Motions for Reconsideration (Re:202203 and 214) For the reasons set forth, the Motions for reconsideration and Certification for Immediate Appeal are denied. The Motion for Stay is also denied. Defendants request a Stay of these proceedings pending resolution of the ongoing government investigations of a potential price-fixing and customer allocation conspiracy. Plaintiffs have satisfied theirpleading burden, and discovery will proceed consistent with the DOJ agreement. Judge Jack Zouhary on 9/15/2011. (C,D)
April 9, 2014
PDF | More
Class Certification Memorandum Opinion and Order. Direct Purchasers' Motion 584 is granted; Indirect Purchasers' Motion 577 is granted. Judge Jack Zouhary (MDL2196) on 4/9/2014. (D,L) Modified to unseal document on 6/9/2016 per Judge Zouhary (D,L).
November 17, 2014
PDF | More
Class Certification Memorandum Opinion and Order (Redacted) Related document 1102. Signed by Judge Jack Zouhary (MDL2196) on 4/9/2014. (K,K)
February 6, 2015
PDF | More
Memorandum Opinion and Order re 1326 SEALED Motion for Summary Judgment. FXI is granted summary judgment of Direct Purchaser' claim that FXI is liable for antitrust injury because it succeeds to Foamex's liability, and the jury will be properly instructed on this point. FXI is denied summary judgment on Direct Purchasers' claim that, after FXI came into existence in 2009, it joined the antitrust conspiracy. Because these material facts are in dispute, that claim must be submitted to a jury. Judge Jack Zouhary (MDL2196) on 2/6/2015. (D,L)
February 9, 2015
PDF | More
Memorandum Opinion and Order re Summary Judgment. This Court has carefully examined the substantial summary judgment record. Questions of fact exist that allow a jury to test Direct Purchasers' claims. Therefore, for the reasons noted above, this Court: Denies Flexible Foam's Motion for Summary Judgment 1321; Denies Future Foam's Motion for Summary Judgment 1324; Denies Hickory Springs' Motion for Summary Judgment 1322; Denies Mohawk's Motion for Summary Judgment 1325, allowing Mohawk to raise arbitration issues after the jury verdict; Denies Woodbridge Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 1329. Denies in part Defendants' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment and Daubert Motions; but grants that part of the Motion with respect to purchases associated with negative impact coefficients 1328. Judge Jack Zouhary (MDL2196) on 2/9/2015. (D,L)
February 26, 2015
PDF | More
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Settlement Motions. For the reasons stated in the Order, Motion for Final Approval of the Leggett & Platt and Carpenter Settlements (Doc. 1439) and Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and for Reimbursement of Expenses (Doc. 1441) are granted. Signed by Judge Jack Zouhary (MDL2196) on 2/26/2015. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A to the Settlement Order, # (2) Exhibit B to the Settlement Order)(K,K)
July 21, 2015
PDF | More
Memorandum Opinion and Order. For the reasons stated in the Order, Defendants' Motions to Decertify the Indirect Purchaser Class are denied. Related documents 1692, 1694. Signed by Judge Jack Zouhary (MDL2196) on 7/21/2015.(K,K)
November 19, 2015
PDF | More
Memorandum Opinion and Order Imposing Sanctions. For the reasons stated in the Order, this Court grants the Direct Purchaser Class's Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 1743), and denies as frivolous Narkin's Cross-Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 1800). Narkin shall pay Direct Purchasers Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) as sanctions for his Rule 11 violations. This Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that Narkin could not appeal this Order in good faith. Signed by Judge Jack Zouhary (MDL2196) on 11/19/2015.(K,K)
November 19, 2015
PDF | More
irect Purchaser Class Representatives (Doc. 1830). For the reasons discussed in this Court's companion Order sanctioning Narkin, filed with this Opinion,this Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that Narkin could not in goMemorandum Opinion and Order For the reasons stated in the Order, this Court grants the Direct Purchaser Class Motion for Final Approval (Doc. 1828), denies Direct Action Plaintiff Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc.'s Motion to Withdraw Request for Exclusion from the Direct Purchaser Certified Class (Doc. 1884), and grants in part and denies in part Class Counsel's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, for Reimbursement of Expenses, and for an Incentive Award to the Dod faith appeal this decision (Doc. 1970). Signed by Judge Jack Zouhary (MDL2196) on 11/19/2015. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A - New Exclusions from Settlements, # (2) Exhibit B - Re-Submitted Exclusions from Settlements)(K,K)
December 30, 2015
PDF | More
Memorandum Opinion and Order re: Objector Andrews. For the reasons stated in the Order, Objector Chris Andrews' Motion to compel discovery and Motion to disqualify attorney/law firm are denied. Related documents 1974, 1975. Signed by Judge Jack Zouhary (MDL2196) on 12/30/2015.(K,K)
January 27, 2016
PDF | More
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the Motions by the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Class for Final Approval of the nine settlement agreements (Docs. 1987 & 1988), and grants in part and denies in part the Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses, and an Incentive Award to the Class Representatives (Doc. 1908). Final approval of the nine Settlement Agreements is granted pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 23(e). The Indirect Purchaser Settlement Classes meet the requirements of Rule 23 and are therefore certified for the purposes of these settlements. The persons and entities identified in Exhibit A are excluded from the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Classes and are not bound by this Order, and may not make any claim or receive any benefit from the relevant settlement, whether monetary or otherwise. As to the Released Parties, the Class Action and any and all currently pending indirect purchaser class action lawsuits directly related to the subject matter of this litigation are dismissed with prejudice and in their entirety, on the merits, and, except as provided for in the Settlement Agreements, without costs. The Releasing Parties are permanently enjoined and barred from instituting, commencing, or prosecuting any ion, interpretation, consummation, and enforcement of these Settlement agreements. The escrow accounts established by certain of the parties are approved as Qualified Settlement Funds pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 468B and related Treasuraction or other proceeding asserting any Released Claims released in the nine Settlement Agreements against any of the Released Parties. This Order does not settle or compromise any other claims by Class Representatives or the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Classes against the Defendants or other persons or entities other than Released Parties, and all rights against any other Defendant or other person or entity are specifically reserved. Pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 54(b), this Court directs entry of final judgment of dismissal as to the Released Parties, as set forth in its separate orders entered following this Order. This Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the Class Action and the Settlement Agreements, including the administraty Regulations. Signed by Judge Jack Zouhary on 1/27/2016. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A- Entities Excluded from the Nine Settlements)(R,Sh)
March 14, 2016
PDF | More
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the Center for Class Action Fairness' (CCAF) Motion for attorney fees (Related Doc # 2028) for the reasons herein stated. Signed by Judge Jack Zouhary on 3/14/2016.(R,Sh)
April 13, 2016
PDF | More
Memorandum Opinion and Order requiring Objectors to post an appeal bond of $145,463. Moreover, to ensure this case concludes appropriately, the parties are required to seek approval from this Court if an Objector agrees to dismiss his or her appeal in exchange for payment (or anything else of value) from any source. Signed by Judge Jack Zouhary on 4/13/2016. (R,Sh)
April 13, 2016
PDF | More
Memorandum Opinion and Order designating Family House Toledo as the receipent of any cy pres distribution. Signed by Judge Jack Zouhary on 4/13/2016. (R,Sh)
April 14, 2016
PDF | More
Clarified Memorandum Opinion and Order re 2065 requiring Objectors to post an appeal bond of $145,463. Moreover, to ensure this case concludes appropriately, the parties are required to seek approval from this Court if an Objector agrees to dismiss his or her appeal in exchange for payment (or anything else of value) from any source. Clarification on page 16: "Accordingly, the appeal bond of $145,463 shall be joint and several." Judge Jack Zouhary on 4/13/2016. (D,L)