A second request for dismissal of some civil complaints related to a class-action lawsuit related to the canned tuna price-fixing scandal involving StarKist and Bumble Bee has been rejected by Judge Dana Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
The two canned tuna producers, which both pleaded guilty to a criminal charge of participating in a conspiracy to fix the price of canned tuna between 2011 and 2013, argued their move to reduce the size of their tuna cans from six ounces to five ounces in 2008 was enough notice to trigger the clock on the statute of limitations.
However, Sabraw ruled in favor of the end-payer plaintiffs (EPPs), a class that includes 73 individual consumers, and the commercial food-preparers (CFPs) class, which argued the change in can size was not a big enough red flag to put them on notice a price-fixing conspiracy was underway.
StarKist and Bumble Bee argued their public statements about the shrinkage in can sizes, along with testimony from some plaintiffs that they notice the change, was enough evidence of their conspiracy to void the class-action suit on the grounds it was filed outside of the legal time-limit placed on such claims.
However, Sabraw said because the conspiracy was only uncovered in 2015 through the investigative resources of the federal government and its subsequent indictments, the lawsuit should proceed.
“In the present case, the most a reasonable EPP or CFP plaintiff could have known prior to the investigation announcement was that prices for tuna were going up and can size was shrinking. These facts alone would almost certainly be insufficient to put plaintiffs on notice that they should investigate the possibility of a tuna cartel, Sabraw wrote. “Two of the three class representatives could not identify when the can downsizing occurred – further indicating that a reasonable consumers’ suspicions would not be excited by the modification in can size. They were clearly annoyed, but to charge them with inquiry notice in 2008 of an antitrust conspiracy that was revealed by [the U.S. Department of Justice] in July 2015 is a bridge too far.”
On Monday, 7 February, 2022, Sabraw ruled the tuna companies had fraudulently concealed their illegal actions, thereby voiding limitations regarding the timeliness of the suit. Sabraw said the companies had engaged in coordinated public statements, document alteration and destruction, clandestine meetings, and other acts of obfuscation that voided the companies’ claims the statute of limitations had been breached.
Photo courtesy of TonelsonProductions/Shutterstock
