It alleges the plaintiff (OEMGN) failed to state a claim. This is the latest development in an ongoing lawsuit among 10 companies allegedly involved in a “conspiracy against the company in an attempt to eliminate it from the market.”
The following are listed as the defendants in the OEMGN lawsuit: Mygrant Glass Company Inc. (Mygrant), Interstate Glass of Amityville NY LLC (Interstate), Metro Glass Distributing Inc. (Metro Glass), Xinyi Auto Glass North America Corp. (Xinyi), Vitro S.A.B. de C.V., Automotive Glass LLC, Fuyao Glass America Inc. (Fuyao), Auto Temp Inc. and Sika Corp.
Vitro Automotriz joined other defendants in the case on its joint motion to dismiss, according to the company’s filed response.
Vitro Automotriz states the amended complaint included allegations against the company that were substantively identical to the allegations asserted by the plaintiffs against each of the other defendants in the lawsuit.
According to the amended complaint, Vitro Automotriz was added as a defendant.
The case began in February 2019 with OEMGN’s original complaint, which alleged a boycott involving several auto glass manufacturers was taking place against OEMGN, resulting in loss of compensation for the two wholesale companies.
OEMGN alleged a scheme to eliminate it from the market was also taking place. Following the original complaint the courts extended time for the companies listed as defense to file a response to OEMGN’s claims, after which the defendants joined to file a joint motion to dismiss on three grounds.
OEMGN then responded to the defense’s joint motion and urged the court to continue pursuing the lawsuit with a trial.
The response claimed Mygrant aimed to “ensure there would be one less guy in town.” From there, OEMGN filed an amended complaint.
“The amended complaint included reference to Vitro Automotriz whenever the Vitro defendants were mentioned, but did not add any additional allegations or independent facts regarding Vitro Automotriz.
The amended complaint alleges that defendants (including Vitro Automotriz) engaged in an illegal group boycott,” a portion of the response filed by Vitro Automotriz reads.
Vitro Automotriz requested the amended complaint be dismissed for several reasons, suggesting that:
1. The plaintiff’s Sherman Act claim – the amended complaint contains no plausible factual allegations sufficient to support that Vitro Automotriz joined in an illegal conspiracy to boycott OEMGN;
2. The plaintiffs’ Donnelly Act claim – it is premised on the same insufficient factual allegations as plaintiffs’ Sherman Act claims; and
3. The plaintiffs’ tortious interference with prospective business relations claim must also be dismissed because the amended complaint fails to state a claim for any intentional or dishonest conduct and is devoid of specific allegations that any prospective negotiations between the plaintiffs and Vitro Automotriz would have produced contracts.
Currently Vitro Automotriz agrees and has joined the other defendants in this lawsuit on its motion to dismiss OEMGN’s amended complaint. Look to a future edition of glassBYTEs for continued coverage of the suit.