Duro-Last, Inc. v. Custom Seal, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that \the procedural rules set forth in Hawaii's antitrust statute\ do not apply in federal court
• finding trade association meetings contributed to conspiracy claim because plaintiffs “have alleged far more than the ‘mere opportunity to conspire,’ and so have shown a high level of interfirm communications”
• \It is also immaterial at this stage of the litigation that Defendant Mylan raised its prices of Propranolol tablets slightly later than its alleged co-conspirators.\
• “The presence of an ongoing investigation into the same subject matter as alleged in the pleadings here raises an inference of conspiracy.”
• “[T]he Court is persuaded that this state procedural rule does not control in federal court, where Rule 23 sets the only relevant requirements to file a class action.”
• In “a class action, a court must analyze the injuries allegedly suffered by the named plaintiffs, not unnamed members of the potential class, to determine whether the plaintiffs have Article III standing.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).