In re Bath and Kitchen Fixtures Antitrust Litigation
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
535 F.3d 161 (2008)
- Written by DeAnna Swearingen, LLM
Facts
The buyers (plaintiffs) of kitchen and bath fixtures filed a class-action lawsuit against several fixture manufacturers (defendants), alleging price fixing and conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Act. The manufacturers filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(6). Rather than dismiss the action, on July 19, 2006, the district court gave the buyers leave to amend the complaint in order to plead sufficient additional facts to satisfy the requirements of notice pleading under FRCP 8(a)(2). The buyers instead filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The manufacturers then filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment in Accordance with the Court’s Memorandum and Order of July 19, 2006, asking the court to strike the notice and enter a dismissal with prejudice, pursuant to the memorandum the court issued on that date. The manufacturers argued that the buyers no longer had the right to take a voluntary dismissal, because the court had already granted the FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The buyers objected, but the court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, effectively with prejudice. The buyers appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scirica, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.


