Once and for all, PoolCorp can put the antitrust class action lawsuit behind it.
After having filed an intent to appeal a decision in PoolCorp’s favor, the plaintiffs in the case opted not to follow through. And none of the individual plaintiffs can sue on their own.
“We were very pleased that the trial judge granted our motions on all claims, and we are now glad to have this litigation behind us,” said David Bamberger, PoolCorp’s attorney, a partner with DLA Piper, based in its Washington, D.C. office.
Manuel Perez de la Mesa, CEO of the Covington, La.-based distributor was more blunt: “It’s the only logical outcome, because there was nothing there,” he said. “… At the end of the day, if you do things the right way and do the right thing, then suits of that kind don’t go anywhere.”
In 2011, industry professionals and consumers filed suit against the distributor, claiming it engaged in anticompetitive activity. The action came immediately after a settlement between PoolCorp and the Federal Trade Commission, which alleged anticompetitive behavior but did not find sufficient proof. The following year, the plaintiffs named three more defendants — Big 3 manufacturers Pentair Aquatic Systems, Hayward Pool Products and Zodiac Pool Systems.
By summer of 2015, the manufacturers settled. Perez de la Mesa publicly declared a refusal to do the same. While PoolCorp has settled in a few lawsuits where it considers itself innocent or peripheral, he said, “In certain cases where we believe there is some sort of precedent being established, our tact is more to pursue those to an end — or a just end when they’re thrown out.”
During the summer, PoolCorp received the ruling it sought, with Judge Sarah S. Vance of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, finding in the distributor’s favor.
Weeks later, the plaintiffs filed an intent to appeal. But they ultimately decided against it. They and their attorneys believed the original decision would prove difficult to overturn, said Russ M. Herman, an attorney for the industry professionals who sued PoolCorp and a partner in New Orleans-based Herman Herman & Katz.
“Judge Sarah Vance was an expert practitioner in antitrust law and litigation before she went to the federal bench and is looked upon among judges and lawyers as an expert in the field,” he said. “It was felt that [her] decision had the facts correctly stated. It could have been a dispute on a single legal issue, but it would cost more to proceed with an appeal in the Fifth Circuit than any worthwhile recovery that might result.”
Because of the settlements, the plaintiffs are essentially satisfied with the overall outcome of the case, Herman said. “We had no objection,” he said.
The Big 3 paid a combined $15.95 million — $6.5 million from Hayward; $6 million from Pentair and $3.45 million from Zodiac. For the approximately 3,000 claimants who have been paid, Herman said, that amounted to an average of $3,531 each.
Perez de la Mesa continues to maintain that the lawsuit was not grounded in principle. “The motivation for most suits is financial,” he said. “I have not heard of a homeless person being sued anytime in the recent past. If you’re successful, you’re more likely to be sued – any business, any person. That’s a reality in this day and age of this country.”
But Herman brushed aside that contention. “I don’t think anybody [is awarded] $16 million in an unjust lawsuit,” he said.
Herman also alluded to the FTC allegations: “The clients were particularly concerned and aware of government findings which gave them a substantial basis to support their concerns that they had been treated unfairly,” he said.
