Ortiz v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., No. 16-4086 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseDefendants are the nation’s largest distributors of pre-filled propane exchange tanks, which come in a standard size. Before 2008, Defendants filled the tanks with 17 pounds of propane. In 2008, due to rising prices, Defendants reduced the amount in each tato 15 pounds, maintaining the same price. Plaintiffs, indirect purchasers, who bought tanks from retailers, claimed this effectively raised the price. In 2009, plaintiffs filed a class action alleging conspiracy under the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs settled with both Defendants. In 2014, the Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint against Defendants, which settled in 2015 by consent orders, for conspiring to artificially inflate tank prices. In 2014, another group of indirect purchasers (Ortiz) brought a class action against Defendants, alleging: “Despite their settlements, Defendants continued to conspire, and ... maintained their illegally agreed-upon fill levels, preserving the unlawfully inflated prices." The Ortiz suit became part of a multidistrict proceeding that included similar allegations by direct purchasers (who bought tanks directly from Defendants for resale). The Eighth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the direct-purchaser suit as time-barred, holding that each sale in a price-fixing conspiracy starts the statutory period running again. The court subsequently held that the indirect purchasers inadequately pled an injury-in-fact and lack standing to pursue an injunction to increase the fill levels of the tanks and may not seek disgorgement of profits.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Loken and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Antitrust. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig., 860 F.3d 1059 (8th Cir. 2017)(en banc), cert. denied, 138 S.Ct. 647 (2018). The district court did not err in finding the Ortiz and Orr classes of indirect purchasers lacked standing to pursue their claims for injunctive relief; the indirect purchasers cannot pursue disgorgement as the grant of the remedy would circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977); the indirect purchasers' state-law-damage claims are remanded for further consideration on the issue of timeliness in light of this court's en banc decision.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.