2:19−cv−00288−mjp · first amended and consolidated class action complaint...

FIRST AMENDED AND CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP )KEL LER ROHRB ACK L .L .P .

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052

T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

JACK L. LIEBO, and ZRD GROUP LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE BUREAU, a Washington nonprofit corporation; WALDUN FOREST PRODUCTS, LTD, a British Columbia corporation; ANBROOK INDUSTRIES LTD, a British Columbia corporation; and G&R CEDAR LTD., a British Columbia corporation,

Defendants.

No. 2:19−cv−00288−MJP

FIRST AMENDED AND CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 2:19-cv-00288-MJP Document 60 Filed 06/28/19 of 136


COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - i KEL LER ROHRB ACK L .L .P .



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. NATURE OF ACTION .................................................................................................... 1

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ....................................................................................... 5

III. PARTIES .......................................................................................................................... 6

A. Plaintiffs ................................................................................................................ 6

B. Defendants ............................................................................................................ 7

C. Non-Defendant Co-Conspirators .......................................................................... 9

D. Other Non-Parties ............................................................................................... 20

E. Former CSSB Members ...................................................................................... 21

F. Unknown Defendants or Co-Conspirators .......................................................... 26

IV. TRADE AND COMMERCE .......................................................................................... 26

V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ......................................................................................... 28

A. Background on Cedar Shakes and Shingles........................................................ 28

1. Cedar Shakes and Shingles. .................................................................... 28

2. Cedar Shakes and Shingles Are Commodities........................................ 31

3. The United States Market for Cedar Shakes and Shingles Is a National Market Worth Hundreds of Millions of Dollars Annually. ................................................................................................. 35

4. The Price of Cedar Shakes and Shingles Has Risen Steadily Since 2011. .............................................................................................. 36

5. Inventories of Cedar Shakes and Shingles Have Increased Substantially in Recent Years Compared to Manufacturing Levels, Which Suggests an Output Restriction by Manufacturers. ........................................................................................ 41

B. The Structure and Characteristics of the Cedar Shakes and Shingles Market, Together with Other Factors, Render the Conspiracy Economically Plausible. .................................................................. 42



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - ii KEL LER ROHRB ACK L .L .P .



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1. The Cedar Shakes and Shingles Industry Is Highly Vertically Integrated. .............................................................................. 42

2. The Market for Cedar Shakes and Shingles Is Characterized by Inelastic Supply and Demand. ........................................................... 42

3. There Are No Significant Substitutes for Cedar Shakes and Shingles. .................................................................................................. 43

4. The Cedar Shakes and Shingles Industry Has Experienced High Consolidation and Is Highly Concentrated. ................................... 43

5. Defendants Had Numerous Opportunities to Collude. ........................... 43

6. There Are High Barriers to Entry in the Cedar Shakes and Shingles Market. ..................................................................................... 50

C. Manufacturer Defendants and Co-Conspirators Have Worked Through the CSSB Structure and Bylaws to Fix the Price of Cedar Shakes and Shingles. ........................................................................................... 53

VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................... 58

VII. ANTITRUST INJURY ................................................................................................... 65

VIII. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT & TOLLING ........................................................ 67

IX. VIOLATION OF SECTION 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT ........................................... 68

X. VIOLATIONS OF STATE ANTITRUST LAWS ......................................................... 69

XI. VIOLATIONS OF STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS ............................... 96



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 1

KEL LER ROHRB ACK L .L .P . 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200

Seattle, WA 98101-3052 T E L E P H O N E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 1 9 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : ( 2 0 6 ) 6 2 3 - 3 3 8 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Plaintiffs Jack L. Liebo and ZRD Group, LLC bring this action on behalf of themselves

individually and on behalf of Nationwide Injunctive Relief and State Classes consisting of all

individuals and entities in the United States that indirectly purchased Certi-Label™ cedar shakes

and shingles for end use and not for resale from the Manufacturer Defendants or their Co-

Conspirators from as early as January 1, 2011 through the present (the “Class Period,” more fully

defined below).1

I. NATURE OF ACTION

1. This class action lawsuit involves an antitrust conspiracy to fix the prices of cedar

shakes and shingles between and among Defendant Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau (“CSSB”)

—the industry’s only trade association—and its manufacturer members, including Defendant

Anbrook Industries Ltd. (“Anbrook”), Defendant Waldun Forest Products Ltd. (“Waldun”), and

Defendant G&R Cedar Ltd. (“G&R”) (collectively, “Manufacturer Defendants”).

2. Cedar shakes and shingles are roofing and siding material produced from cedar logs

and cut blocks. A cedar shake is a rustic-looking roofing shingle that has been hand split,

replicating the look of an ax or mallet cut. Shakes are rough and variable and almost always used

for roofing. Cedar shingles are uniformly sawn for a consistent and even thickness and provide a

uniform machine-like look. Shingles are used for both sidewalls and roofing.

3. Cedar shakes and shingles are made from Western Red Cedar or Alaskan Yellow

Cedar, and are only commercially harvested in the Pacific Northwest—including British

Columbia, Washington, and Idaho. The first step in creating cedar shakes or shingles is to convert

1 Additional discovery may reveal that the conduct alleged in this Amended Complaint commenced prior to the start of the Class Period, and Plaintiff reserves all rights to amend his complaint as appropriate.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

cedar logs into round blocks in which all bark, knots, and checks are removed from the blocks by

cutting and sorting the raw cedar material.

4. Between 2011 and 2018, Canadian manufacturers—including the Manufacturer

Defendants and their Co-Conspirators—exported more than $1 billion in cedar shakes and shingles

to the United States, averaging more than $139 million per year.

5. The CSSB is a trade association serving the shake and shingle industry in the United

States and Canada. CSSB owns the trademark “Certi-Label™” shakes and shingles, which

includes the Certi-Grade™, Certi-Sawn™, Certi-Split™, and Certi-Ridge™ registered trademark

labels. CSSB Certi-Label™ shakes and shingles account for an estimated 95% of the high-end

cedar shake and shingles utilized in the United States product market. All CSSB members

participate in and sell the vast majority of their high-end cedar shake and shingle products in the

United States.

6. The CSSB plays a large role in regulating the cedar shake and shingle industry in

the United States and Canada. The CSSB drafted and holds the copyright to the CSSB-97 Grading

and Packing Rules, which have been almost universally incorporated into building codes

throughout the United States and Canada. The CSSB-97 Grading Rules have been adopted into

the Uniform Building Code, which has now been incorporated into the International Residential

Code and International Building Code published by the International Code Council.

7. The CSSB has aggressively and successfully promoted its CSSB-97 Grading and

Packing Rules and its trademarked Certi-Label™ shakes and shingles. Virtually all of the

manufacturers of high-end shakes and shingles sold and used in the United States in the past 20

years have been members of the CSSB.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8. CSSB Certi-Label™ products, accounting for approximately 95% of the high-end

cedar shake and shingle products sold in the United States, sell at a premium price of at least 15-

20% more than non-Certi-Label™ products.

9. Because the raw lumber material costs for cedar shakes and shingles are set based

on competitive auctions, the pricing premium of the Certi-Label™ products restricts the ability of

non-CSSB manufacturers to obtain raw materials on commercially viable terms.

10. The CSSB authorizes its members to use Certi-Label™ on their products only if

their products meet the CSSB Grading Rules. Only CSSB members are given a license and are

permitted to use the CSSB’s trademarked and copyrighted Certi-Label™.

11. Membership in the CSSB trade association is necessary to effectively compete in

the U.S. in the high-end shakes and shingles market.

12. The cedar shake and shingle industry has become significantly consolidated over

the past two decades. CSSB cedar shake and shingle manufacturers now operate only in the Pacific

Northwest states of Washington and Idaho, and the Canadian province of British Columbia.

13. Manufacturer Defendants have a concentration of power in the CSSB, partly due to

the consolidation of the shake and shingle industry, and partly due to the voting structure of the

CSSB, which weighs votes based on each manufacturer member’s annual shake and shingle

production.

14. In fact, through the CSSB, Manufacturer Defendants have used their voting power

to terminate members from the CSSB who compete on price and who are unwilling to follow the

price and product leadership of Manufacturer Defendants.

15. Defendants’ wrongful and anticompetitive actions had the intended purpose and






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

effect of artificially fixing, raising, maintaining, and stabilizing the price of cedar shakes and

shingles to Plaintiffs and class members in the United States. Indeed, 90% of all cedar shakes and

shingles manufactured in Canada are exported to the United States.2

16. On information and belief, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), Antitrust

Division currently has an open and ongoing preliminary inquiry investigation into the cedar shake

and shingle industry for possible violations of antitrust laws.

17. Plaintiffs have conducted a thorough economic analysis of pricing in the industry

with the assistance of an experienced economics consulting firm. This proprietary analysis, which

is discussed and illustrated in several charts below, demonstrates that the pricing of cedar shakes

and shingles sold in the United States has increased substantially since January 1, 2011 and that

these price increases cannot be explained by normal market forces such as the increase of raw

material costs or changes in supply and demand.

18. The cedar shake and shingle industry is highly conductive to collusion: the cedar

shake and shingle manufacturing industry is highly vertically integrated; product demand is

inelastic; there are no significant substitute products; the market is highly consolidated and highly-

concentrated; barriers to entry into the market are extremely high; and there is ample opportunity

to conspire.

19. Defendants have conspired to fix, increase, maintain, or stabilize the price of Certi-

Label™ cedar shakes and shingles and have effectively reduced or eliminated price competition

among cedar shake and shingle manufacturers in violation of the Sherman Act and state antitrust

2 , Christopher Gregory, Alec McBeath, and Cosmin Filipescu, An Economic Assessment of the Western Red Cedar Industry in British Columbia, Natural Resources Canada, (2018), http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/rncan-nrcan/Fo149-13-2017-eng.pdf.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

laws.

20. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and the Classes paid

artificially inflated prices for cedar shakes and shingles during the Class Period, i.e., January 1,

2011 through the present. Such prices exceeded the amount they would have paid for cedar shakes

and shingles if the price had been determined by a competitive market. Thus, Plaintiffs and class

members suffered an antitrust injury as a result of Defendants’ conduct.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

21. Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of the Classes to recover actual and/or

compensatory damages, double and treble damages as permitted, pre- and post-judgment interest,

costs, and attorneys’ fees for the injury caused by Defendants’ fixing of the price of cedar shakes

and shingles. Plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $5,000,000. Plaintiffs bring this action under

Section 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 26) to secure injunctive relief against Defendants for

violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15(a) and

26.

22. Plaintiffs also assert claims for actual and exemplary damages and injunctive relief

pursuant to state antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws, and seek to obtain

restitution, recover damages, and secure other relief against Defendants for violation of those state

laws. Plaintiffs and the Classes also seek attorneys’ fees, costs, and other expenses under federal

and state laws. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and 1367, in that: (i) this is a class action in which the matter or controversy

exceeds the sum of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and in which some members of the

proposed Classes are citizens of a state different from some defendants; and (ii) Plaintiffs’ state






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

law claims form part of the same case or controversy as their federal claims under Article III of

the United States Constitution.

23. Venue is appropriate in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c) and (d) because

one or more Defendants resided or transacted business in this District, is licensed to do business

or is doing business in this District, and because a substantial portion of the affected interstate

commerce described herein was carried out in this District.

24. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant because, inter alia, each

Defendant: (a) transacted business throughout the United States, including in this District; (b)

manufactured, sold, shipped, and/or delivered substantial quantities of cedar shakes and shingles

throughout the United States, including this District; (c) had substantial contacts with the United

States, including this District; and/or (d) engaged in an antitrust conspiracy that was directed at

and had a direct, foreseeable, and intended effect of causing injury to the business or property of

persons residing in, located in, or doing business throughout the United States, including this

District.

25. The activities of the Defendants and all Co-Conspirators, as described herein, were

within the flow of, were intended to, and did have direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable

effects on the foreign and interstate commerce of the United States.

26. No other forum would be more convenient for the parties and witnesses to litigate

this case.

III. PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs

27. Plaintiff Jack L. Liebo is a resident of Minnesota and citizen of the United States.

Mr. Liebo purchased cedar shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ indirectly from one or more






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

of the co-conspirator manufacturers for end use and not for resale during the Class Period.

28. Plaintiff ZRD Group, LLC is a New York corporation with a principal place of

business in Nassau County, New York. ZRD Group purchased cedar shingles bearing the CSSB

Certi-Label™ indirectly from one or more of the co-conspirator manufacturers for end use and not

for resale during the Class Period.

B. Defendants

29. Defendant CSSB is a Washington nonprofit corporation that is the only trade

association serving the shake and shingle industry in the United States and Canada. The CSSB is

headquartered in Mission, British Columbia, and maintains a U.S. Post Office Box in Sumas,

Washington.

30. Defendant Anbrook is a British Columbia corporation with its principal place of

business in Pitt Meadows, British Columbia. Anbrook also maintains a U.S. Post Office Box in

Sumas, Washington. Anbrook manufactures Certi-Label™ shakes and shingles, and owns and

operates a cedar shake and shingle manufacturing facility in Pitt Meadows, British Columbia.

Anbrook is one of the largest cedar shake and shingle manufacturers in the world. It is a member

of the CSSB, and its President, Brooke Meeker (“Meeker”), sits on the CSSB’s Board of Directors,

and acts as its current Chairwoman. During the Class Period, Anbrook or its predecessors, wholly-

owned or controlled subsidies, or affiliates sold cedar shakes and shingles in interstate commerce,

directly or through its wholly-owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States.

31. Defendant Waldun is a British Columbia corporation with its principal place of

business in Maple Ridge, British Columbia. Waldun also maintains a U.S. Post Office Box in

Sumas, Washington. Waldun touts itself as “the largest company in the world manufacturing such

a selection of cedar products.” Waldun manufactures Certi-Label™ shakes and shingles and owns






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

and operates a cedar shake and shingle manufacturer in Maple Ridge, British Columbia. Waldun

is a member of the CSSB, and its Director/President, Curtis Walker, sits on CSSB’s Board of

Directors, and acts as its Secretary/Treasurer. Curtis Walker’s brother, Clay Walker, served as the

CSSB’s Cedar Quality Auditor from 2011-2018 and now serves as the CSSB’s District Manager

for the Pacific Northwest region. During the Class Period, Waldun or its predecessors, wholly-

owned or controlled subsidies, or affiliates sold cedar shakes and shingles in interstate commerce,

directly or through its wholly-owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States.

32. Defendant G&R is a British Columbia corporation headquartered in Matsqui,

British Columbia. G&R manufactures Certi-Label™ shakes and shingles, and owns and operates

a cedar shake and shingle manufacturer in Matsqui, British Columbia, with a second

manufacturing facility in Chilliwack, British Columbia. G&R is member of the CSSB, and its

Sales Manager, Stuart Dziedzic, currently sits on the CSSB Board of Directors. During the Class

Period, G&R and/or its predecessors, wholly-owned or controlled subsidies, or affiliates sold cedar

shakes and shingles in interstate commerce, directly or through its wholly-owned or controlled

affiliates, to purchasers in the United States.

33. “Defendant” or “Defendants” as used herein includes, in addition to those named

specifically above, all of the named Defendants’ predecessors, including cedar shake and shingle

companies that merged with or were acquired by the named Defendants and each named

Defendant’s wholly-owned or controlled subsidiaries or affiliates that sold or distributed Certi-

Label™ cedar shakes and shingles interstate commerce, directly or through its wholly-owned or

controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States during the Class Period.

34. To the extent that subsidiaries and divisions within each Defendant’s corporate






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

family sold or distributed Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles to direct purchasers, these

subsidiaries played a material role in the conspiracy alleged in this First Amended and

Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) because Defendants wished to

ensure that the prices paid for such cedar shakes and shingles would not undercut the artificially

raised and inflated pricing that was the aim and intended result of Defendants’ coordinated and

collusive behavior as alleged herein. Thus, all such entities within the corporate family were

active, knowing participants in the conspiracy alleged herein, and their conduct in selling, pricing,

distributing and collecting monies from Plaintiffs and members of the Classes for Certi-Label™

cedar shakes and shingles was known to and approved by their respective corporate parent named

as a Defendant in this Amended Complaint.

C. Non-Defendant Co-Conspirators

35. Various other persons, firms, and corporations not currently named as defendants

have participated as Co-Conspirators of Defendants and have performed acts and made statements

in furtherance of the conspiracy (collectively, the “Non-Defendant Co-Conspirators”). Defendants

are jointly and severally liable for the acts of the Non-Defendant Co-Conspirators whether or not

currently named as defendants in this Amended Complaint. A list of the known Non-Defendant

Co-Conspirators follows.

36. #208 Shake & Shingle/Griffiths Inc. (#208) is a Washington corporation

headquartered in Moclips, Washington. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-

Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, #208 and/or its predecessors, wholly-

owned or controlled subsidies, or affiliates sold Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles in

interstate commerce, indirectly or through its wholly-owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers

in the United States.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

37. A&R Cedar, Inc. (“A&R”) is a Washington corporation headquartered in Hoquiam,

Washington. A&R is a member of the CSSB, and Cecilia Acuna, a member of its senior

management team, currently sits on the CSSB Board of Directors in an Ex-Officio capacity.

During the Class Period, A&R and/or its predecessors, wholly-owned or controlled subsidies, or

affiliates sold Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles in interstate commerce, indirectly or

through its wholly-owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States.

38. A.B. Cedar Shingle (“A.B. Cedar”) is a British Columbia corporation

headquartered in Sicamous, British Columbia. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures

Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, A.B. Cedar and/or its

predecessors, wholly-owned or controlled subsidies, or affiliates sold Certi-Label™ cedar shakes

and shingles in interstate commerce, indirectly or through its wholly-owned or controlled affiliates,

to purchasers in the United States.

39. A.C.S Cedar, Inc. (“A.C.S.”) is a Washington corporation headquartered in

Aberdeen, Washington. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-Label™ cedar shakes

and shingles. During the Class Period, A.C.S. and/or its predecessors, wholly-owned or controlled

subsidies, or affiliates sold Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles in interstate commerce,

indirectly or through its wholly-owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States.

40. Acuna Cedar Products (“Acuna Cedar”) is a Washington corporation headquartered

in Sedro-Woolley, Washington. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-Label™ cedar

shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Acuna Cedar and/or its predecessors, wholly-owned

or controlled subsidies, or affiliates sold Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles in interstate

commerce, indirectly or through its wholly-owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States.

41. Alfa Red Cedar Products, Inc. (“Alfa Red”) is a Washington corporation

headquartered in Hoquiam, Washington. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-

Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Alfa Red and/or its predecessors,

wholly-owned or controlled subsidies, or affiliates sold Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles

in interstate commerce, indirectly or through its wholly-owned or controlled affiliates, to

purchasers in the United States.

42. American Cedar Sales, LLC (“American Cedar”) is an Idaho corporation

headquartered in Kamiah, Idaho. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-Label™

cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, American Cedar and/or its predecessors,




43. Anderson Shake and Shingle Mill, Inc. (“Anderson”) is a Washington corporation

headquartered in Cathlamet, Washington. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-

Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Anderson and/or its predecessors,




44. Best Shingle Sales Inc. (“Best”) is a Washington corporation headquartered in

Hoquiam, Washington. Best is a member of the CSSB, and owner Terry Kost, currently sits on

the CSSB Board of Directors. During the Class Period, Best and/or its predecessors, wholly-owned






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26



United States.

45. Campbell River Shake & Shingle Co. Ltd. (“Campbell River”) is a British

Columbia corporation headquartered in Campbell River, British Columbia. It is a member of the

CSSB and manufactures Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period,

Campbell River and/or its predecessors, wholly-owned or controlled subsidies, or affiliates sold

Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles in interstate commerce, indirectly or through its wholly-

owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States.

46. Cape Scott Cedar Products Ltd. (“Cape Scott”) is a British Columbia corporation

headquartered in Port Hardy, British Columbia. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures

Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Cape Scott and/or its




47. Clearbrook Shake & Shingle Ltd. (“Clearbrook”) is a British Columbia corporation

headquartered in Abbotsford, British Columbia. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures

Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Clearbrook and/or its




48. Comox Valley Shakes (2019) Ltd. (“Comox”) is a British Columbia corporation






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

headquartered in Campbell River, British Columbia. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures

Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Comox and/or its predecessors,




49. Confederated Shake & Shingle Ltd. (“Confederated”) is a British Columbia

corporation headquartered in Duncan, British Columbia. It is a member of the CSSB and

manufactures Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Premium and/or

its predecessors, wholly-owned or controlled subsidies, or affiliates sold Certi-Label™ cedar

shakes and shingles in interstate commerce, indirectly or through its wholly-owned or controlled


50. DLM Shake Co. (“DLM”) is an Idaho business based in Saint Maries, Idaho. It is

a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the

Class Period, DLM and/or its predecessors, wholly-owned or controlled subsidies, or affiliates

sold Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles in interstate commerce, indirectly or through its

wholly-owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States.

51. Fabian Shingles LLC (“Fabian”) is a Washington corporation headquartered in

Amanda Park, Washington. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-Label™ cedar

shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Fabian and/or its predecessors, wholly-owned or

controlled subsidies, or affiliates sold Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles in interstate


United States.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

52. Goat Lake Forest Products (1985) Ltd. (“Goat Lake”) is a British Columbia

corporation headquartered in Powell River, British Columbia. It is a member of the CSSB and

manufactures Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Goat Lake and/or

its predecessors, wholly-owned or controlled subsidies, or affiliates sold Certi-Label™ cedar

shakes and shingles in interstate commerce, indirectly or through its wholly-owned or controlled


53. Golden Ears Shingle Ltd. (“Golden Ears”) is a British Columbia corporation

headquartered in Maple Ridge, British Columbia. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures

Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Golden Ear and/or its




54. Imperial Cedar Products Ltd. (“Imperial”) is a British Columbia corporation

headquartered in Maple Ridge, British Columbia. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures

Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Imperial and/or its




55. J.C. Shingles, Inc. (“J.C. Shingles”) is a Washington corporation headquartered in

Amanda Park, Washington. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-Label™ cedar

shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, J.C. Shingles and/or its predecessors, wholly-owned







1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


United States.

56. J.E.C. Cedar, Inc. (“J.E.C.”) is a Washington corporation headquartered in Amanda

Park, Washington. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and

shingles. During the Class Period, J.E.C. and/or its predecessors, wholly-owned or controlled



57. L & H Shake, Inc. (L&H Shake”) is a Washington corporation headquartered in

Hoquiam, Washington. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-Label™ cedar shakes

and shingles. During the Class Period, L&H Shake and/or its predecessors, wholly-owned or



United States.

58. Long Cedar Inc. (“Long Cedar”) is a Washington corporation headquartered in

Forks, Washington. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and

shingles. During the Class Period, Long Cedar and/or its predecessors, wholly-owned or



United States.

59. Pacific Cedar (“Pacific Cedar”) is a Canadian business based in Port Alberni,

British Columbia. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and

shingles. During the Class Period, Pacific Cedar and/or its predecessors, wholly-owned or






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26



United States.

60. Pacific Chalet Ltd. (“Pacific Chalet”) is a British Columbia corporation

headquartered in Powell River, British Columbia. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures

Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Pacific Chalet and/or its




61. Pacific Coast Cedar Products, Ltd. (“Pacific Coast”) is a British Columbia

corporation headquartered in Maple Ridge, British Columbia. It is a member of the CSSB and

manufactures Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Pacific Coast

and/or its predecessors, wholly-owned or controlled subsidies, or affiliates sold Certi-Label™

cedar shakes and shingles in interstate commerce, indirectly or through its wholly-owned or

controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States.

62. Pacific Shingle Inc. (“Pacific Shingle”) is a Washington corporation headquartered

in Forks, Washington. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-Label™ cedar shakes

and shingles. During the Class Period, Pacific Shingle and/or its predecessors, wholly-owned or



United States.

63. Pleasant Lake Cedar (“Pleasant Lake”) is a Washington business based in Beaver,






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Washington. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and

shingles. During the Class Period, Pleasant Lake and/or its predecessors, wholly-owned or



United States.

64. Port McNeill Shake & Shingle (2007) Ltd. (“Port McNeill”) is a Canadian

corporation headquartered in Port McNeill, British Columbia. It is a member of the CSSB and

manufactures Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Port McNeill




65. Premium Cedar Products Ltd. (“Premium Cedar”) is a British Columbia

corporation headquartered in Maple Ridge, British Columbia. It is a member of the CSSB and its

Owner, Ed Watkins, sits on the CSSB Board of Directors and previously served as the Board’s

Chairman. During the Class Period, Premium and/or its predecessors, wholly-owned or controlled



66. Premium Shingle LLC (“Premium Shingle”) is a Washington corporation

headquartered in Beaver, Washington. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-

Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Premium Shingle and/or its








1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


67. Rainy Day Shake & Shingle, Inc. (“Rainy Day”) is a Washington corporation

headquartered in Forks, Washington. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-Label™

cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Rainy Day and/or its predecessors, wholly-

owned or controlled subsidies, or affiliates sold Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles in

interstate commerce, indirectly or through its wholly-owned or controlled affiliates, to purchasers

in the United States.

68. Riverside Shingle Products Ltd. (“Riverside”) is a British Columbia corporation

headquartered in Errington, British Columbia. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-

Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Riverside and/or its predecessors,




69. Serpentine Cedar Ltd. (“Serpentine”) is a British Columbia corporation

headquartered in Langley City, British Columbia. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures

Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Serpentine and/or its




70. Silver-Coqu Cedar Products (“Silver-Coqu”) is a British Columbia corporation

headquartered in Hope, British Columbia. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-

Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Silver-Coqu and/or its predecessors,






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26




71. Star Cedar Sales, Inc. (“Star Cedar”), is an Idaho corporation headquartered in

Kamiah, Idaho. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and

shingles. During the Class Period, Star Cedar and/or its predecessors, wholly-owned or controlled



72. Stave Lake Cedar Mills Inc. (“Stave Lake”) is a British Columbia corporation

headquartered in Dewdney City, British Columbia. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures

Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Premium and/or its




73. Titan Cedar Products Ltd. (“Titan”) is a British Columbia corporation

headquartered in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures

Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Titan and/or its predecessors,




74. Vancouver Island Shingle Ltd. (“Vancouver Shingle”) is a British Columbia

corporation headquartered in Mount Waddington, British Columbia. It is a member of the CSSB






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

and manufactures Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Vancouver

Shingle and/or its predecessors, wholly-owned or controlled subsidies, or affiliates sold Certi-

Label™ cedar shakes and shingles in interstate commerce, indirectly or through its wholly-owned

or controlled affiliates, to purchasers in the United States.

75. Watkins Sawmill (“Watkins”) is a British Columbia corporation headquartered in

Mission, British Columbia with operations in Maple Ridge, British Columbia. It has a common

ownership and management with Premium Cedar, and even uses the same main telephone number

and labeling on Certi-Label™ products it manufactures. It is a member of the CSSB, and is

President, Ed Watkins, sits on the CSSB’s Board of Directors and served as its Past Chairman.

Watkins manufacturers Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Watkins




76. Zoffel Logging & Milling Inc. (“Zoffel”) is a Washington corporation

headquartered in Forks, Washington. It is a member of the CSSB and manufactures Certi-Label™

cedar shakes and shingles. During the Class Period, Zoffel and/or its predecessors, wholly-owned



United States.

D. Other Non-Parties

77. S&W Forest Products, Ltd. (“S&W”) is a British Columbia corporation

headquartered in Maple Ridge, British Columbia. During the Class Period, S&W and/or its







1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


to purchasers in the United States. As described in greater detail herein, in December 2018, the

CSSB Board of Directors terminated S&W’s membership in the CSSB because it was alleged that

S&W was selling Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles at discounted prices, and after filing a

complaint, which alleged allegations of anticompetitive conduct by the Defendants in this action,

S&W re-admitted to the CSSB in April 2018 after successfully moving for a preliminary injunction

in this District.

E. Former CSSB Members

78. Various other persons, firms, and corporations manufactured Certi-Label™ cedar

shakes and shingles as members of the CSSB during the Class Period (collectively, the “Former

CSSB Members”). A list of the known Former CSSB Members follows. Multiple other Former

CSSB Members have been expelled in the past from the CSSB for discounting Certi-Label™

products.

79. A.K. Cedar Products Ltd. (“A.K. Cedar”) is a British Columbia corporation

headquartered in Abbotsford, British Columbia. It was a member of the CSSB in or around 2016.

During the Class Period, A.K. Cedar and/or its predecessors, agents, wholly owned or controlled

subsidiaries, or affiliates manufactured and sold Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles in

interstate commerce, directly or indirectly to purchasers in the United States.

80. B&B Cedar Sales, Inc. (“B&B”) is a Washington corporation headquartered in

Lacey, Washington. It was a member of the CSSB in or around 2012. During the Class Period,

B&B and/or its predecessors, agents, wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates

manufactured and sold Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles in interstate commerce, directly

or indirectly to purchasers in the United States.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

81. B.C.F. Shake Mill Ltd. (“B.C.F.”) is a British Columbia corporation headquartered

in Fanny Bay, British Columbia. It was a member of the CSSB during the Class Period. During

the Class Period, B.C.F. and/or its predecessors, agents, wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries,

or affiliates manufactured and sold Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles in interstate

commerce, directly or indirectly to purchasers in the United States.

82. Cedar Valley Holdings Ltd. (“Cedar Valley”) was a British Columbia corporation

headquartered in Valemont, British Columbia. It was a member of the CSSB in or around 2016.

During the Class Period, Cedar Valley and/or its predecessors, agents, wholly owned or controlled



83. Crawford Shake & Shingle Ltd. (“Crawford”) was a British Columbia corporation

headquartered in Port Alberni, British Columbia. It was a member of the CSSB in or around 2013.

During the Class Period, Crawford and/or its predecessors, agents, wholly owned or controlled



84. D&G Shake Co., Inc. (“D&G”) was a Washington corporation headquartered in

Amanda Park, Washington. It was a member of the CSSB in or around 2016. During the Class

Period, D&G and/or its predecessors, agents, wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates



85. Francisco Cisneros Shingles (“Francisco Shingles”) was a Washington business

based in the Forks, Washington area. It was a member of the CSSB in or around 2016. During






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

the Class Period, Francisco Shingles and/or its predecessors, agents, wholly owned or controlled

subsidiaries, or affiliates manufactured and sold Certi-Label™ CSS in interstate commerce,

directly or indirectly to purchasers in the United States.

86. Hoko Falls Cedar (“Hoko Falls”) is a Washington business based in Sekiu,

Washington. It was a member of the CSSB in or around 2012. During the Class Period, Hoko

Falls Cedar and/or its predecessors, agents, wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates



87. Lamming Cedar Mills BC (“Lamming Cedar”) is a British Columbia business

based in McBride, British Columbia. It was a member of the CSSB in or around 2012. During

the Class Period, Lamming Cedar and/or its predecessors, agents, wholly owned or controlled



88. Medley Co. Cedar, Inc. (“Medley”) is an Idaho corporation headquartered in Pierce,

Idaho. It was a member of the CSSB in or around 2012. During the Class Period, Medley and/or

its predecessors, agents, wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates manufactured and

sold Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles in interstate commerce, directly or indirectly to


89. ML Cedar Products Inc. (“ML Cedar”) was a Washington corporation

headquartered in Forks, Washington. It was a member of the CSSB in or around 2013, 2016, and

2017. During the Class Period, ML Cedar and/or its predecessors, agents, wholly owned or

controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates manufactured and sold Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

shingles in interstate commerce, directly or indirectly to purchasers in the United States.

90. Olympic Cedar Products, Inc. (“Olympic”) is a Washington corporation

headquartered in Forks, Washington. It was a member of the CSSB in or around 2016 and 2017.

During the Class Period, Olympic and/or its predecessors, agents, wholly owned or controlled



91. Pacific NW Products LLC (“Pacific NW”) is a Washington corporation

headquartered in Forks, Washington. It was a member of the CSSB in or around 2017. During

the Class Period, Pacific NW and/or its predecessors, agents, wholly owned or controlled



92. Real Wood, Inc. (“Real Wood”) was a Washington corporation headquartered in

Sequim, Washington. It was a member of the CSSB in or around 2012 and 2015. During the Class

Period, Real Wood and/or its predecessors, agents, wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, or

affiliates manufactured and sold Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles in interstate commerce,


93. S&K Cedar Products Ltd. (“S&K”) is a British Columbia corporation

headquartered in Mission, British Columbia. It was a member of the CSSB in or around 2012 to

2017. During the Class Period, S&K and/or its predecessors, agents, wholly owned or controlled



94. Sherico Cedar Products (“Sherico”) is a Washington corporation headquartered in






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Forks, Washington. It was a member of the CSSB in or around 2012 and 2013. During the Class

Period, Sherico and/or its predecessors, agents, wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, or

affiliates manufactured and sold Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles in interstate commerce,


95. Stave River Industries Ltd. (“Stave River”) was a British Columbia corporation

headquartered in Maple Ridge, British Columbia. It was a member of the CSSB in or around 2012

and 2015. During the Class Period, Stave River and/or its predecessors, agents, wholly owned or



96. Twin River Lumber (“Twin River”) is a British Columbia business based in

Malakwa, British Columbia. It was a member of the CSSB in or around 2013, 2016, and 2017.

During the Class Period, Twin River Lumber and/or its predecessors, agents, wholly owned or



97. Western Gold Cedar Products (“Western Gold”) is an Alaskan business based in

Thorne Bay, Alaska. It was a member of the CSSB in or around 2016. During the Class Period,

Western Gold and/or its predecessors, agents, wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates



98. Wilson Shake Mill (“Wilson”) was a Washington business based in Chehalis,

Washington. It was a member of the CSSB in or around 2012. During the Class Period, Wilson

Shake Mill and/or its predecessors, agents, wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, or affiliates






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26



F. Unknown Defendants or Co-Conspirators

Various other persons, firms, and corporations not named as defendants have participated

as Co-Conspirators with Defendants and have performed acts and made statements in furtherance

of the conspiracy. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the acts of their Co-

Conspirators whether or not currently named as defendants in this Amended Complaint.

99. Whenever reference is made to any act of any corporation, the allegation means

that the corporation engaged in the act by or through its officers, directors, agents, employees, or

representatives while they were actively engaged in the management, direction, control, or

transaction of the corporation’s business or affairs.

100. Each of the Defendants named herein acted as the agent or joint-venturer of or for

the other Defendants with respect to the acts, violations, and common course of conduct alleged

herein.

101. Defendants are also liable for acts done in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy by

companies they acquired through mergers and acquisitions.

IV. TRADE AND COMMERCE

102. The United States is the largest market for Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles

in the world, valued at hundreds of millions of dollars annually. During the Class Period, the

Manufacturer Defendants and Co-Conspirators collectively possessed a majority share of the

market for cedar shakes and shingles in the United States.

103. Most cedar shakes and shingles are manufactured by Manufacturer Defendants in

British Columbia, and then imported into the United States. According to the official Canadian






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

export data, between 2011 and 2018, roughly $1.1 billion worth of cedar shakes and shingles were

imported into the United States from British Columbia (nearly 10% of these imports were into

Washington)—or more than $139 million worth of cedar shakes and shingles on average per year.

This equates to nearly 91% of all cedar shakes and shingles manufactured in British Columbia

being imported into the United States between 2011 and 2018.

104. During the Class Period, Defendants engaged in conduct both inside and outside of

the United States that caused direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable and intended

anticompetitive effects upon interstate commerce within the United States.

105. All CSSB manufacturers (including the Manufacturing Defendants and the Non-

Defendant Co-Conspirators) participate in and sell the vast majority of their cedar shakes and

shingles in the United States, and due to the “All or Nothing” Rule, all of the cedar shakes and

shingles sold by the CSSB manufacturers in the United States are Certi-Label™ products.

106. During the Class Period, each Manufacturer Defendant, directly, indirectly, or

through its subsidiaries or other affiliates, sold cedar shakes and shingles in the United States in a

continuous and uninterrupted flow of interstate commerce and foreign commerce, including

through and into this judicial district.

107. During the Class Period, Manufacturer Defendants and Co-Conspirators

collectively controlled a majority of the market for cedar shakes and shingles in the United States.

108. Cedar shakes and shingles manufactured abroad by Defendants and sold as stand-

alone products are goods brought into the United States for sale and therefore constitute import

commerce. To the extent that any cedar shakes and shingles are purchased in the United States

and do not constitute import commerce, Defendants’ unlawful conduct with respect thereto, as






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

more fully alleged herein during the Class Period, had and continues to have a direct, substantial,

and reasonably foreseeable effect on United States commerce. The anticompetitive conduct, and

its effect on United States commerce described herein, caused antitrust injury to Plaintiffs and

members of the Classes in the United States.

109. Defendants’ business activities substantially affected interstate trade and commerce

in the United States and caused antitrust injury in the United States.

110. By reason of the unlawful activities hereinafter alleged, Defendants substantially

affected commerce throughout the United States, causing injury to Plaintiffs and members of the

Classes. Defendants, directly and indirectly, through their agents, engaged in activities affecting

all states, to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices, and allocate market shares for cedar shakes

and shingles, which unreasonably restrained trade and adversely affected the market for such

products.

V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Background on Cedar Shakes and Shingles.

1. Cedar Shakes and Shingles.

111. As noted above, cedar shakes are rustic looking and used in roofing, while cedar

shingles are uniformly sawn for a consistent and even thickness and provide a uniform machine-

like look. Cedar shingles are used for both sidewalls and roofing. According to Defendant G&R’s

website, “[t]he main difference between a shingle and a shake is that a shingle is sawn on both

sides for a smooth, tailored appearance, while a shake is split on the face, and sawn on the back,

for a rougher, rustic look.”

112. The following illustrates a visual depiction of the differences between a cedar shake

and a cedar shingle:






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

113. As used in this Amended Complaint, “cedar shakes and shingles” refers to any

cedar product bearing the Certi-Label™ of the CSSB. These Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and

shingles are generally referred to as Certisawn® Shakes, Certi-Split® Shakes and Certigrade®

Shingles.

A. Certi-Split® (Handsplit and Resawn): These shakes have a split face

exposed with a naturally rustic appearance, sawn on the back. Most common lengths are

18” and 24” with butt thickness ranges from 3/8” to 2” plus.

B. Certisawn® (Tapersawn): These shakes are sawn on both sides for a semi-

textured look with a stronger shadowline than a shingle. Most common lengths are 18”

and 24” with butt thickness ranges from 5/8” to 1 ½”.

C. Certigrade® Shingles: These shingles are sawn on both sides for a tailored

appearance. Available in 16” Fivex, 18” Perfection or 24” Royal lengths with butt

thickness gauged using a stack of shingles to meet the proper measurements.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2. Cedar Shakes and Shingles Are Commodities.

114. The CSSB aggressively promotes its Certi-Label™. For example, the CSSB

website contains a 20-page brochure explaining how to read CSSB Certi-Label™s and different

shake and shingle grades, which includes examples of all CSSB Certi-Label™s and which warns

consumers about potential use of competing labels that are not CSSB Certi-Label™.

115. CSSB Certi-Label™ shakes and shingles are produced from cedar logs and cut

blocks of Western Red Cedar or Alaskan Yellow Cedar. Western Red Cedar and Alaskan Yellow

Cedar are only commercially available in Canada. British Columbia has the world’s largest

commercial supply of standing Western Red Cedar.

116. Both Western Red Cedar and Alaskan Yellow Cedar are durable, naturally water-

resistant, and highly resistant to decay. Both species are used for a variety of building applications

outside of cedar shakes and shingles (e.g., decking, fencing, and landscaping).

117. CSSB-97 grading rules, which govern the production and packaging of shake and

shingles products with such label, have been widely incorporated and almost uniformly accepted

in building codes throughout the United States, Canada, and internationally.

118. Cedar shakes and shingles are commodity products with little or no product

differentiation based on the manufacturer. In fact, to be sold as a product bearing the CSSB Certi-

Label™, all products must be uniform and meet the specifications required by the CSSB.

119. To ensure each manufacturer maintains the CSSB-97 quality and uniformity

requirements, the CSSB employs a senior quality auditor along with an Intertek inspector to

oversee the compliance of manufacturers and report back to the CSSB if they deem a manufacturer

to be in violation.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

120. The CSSB has aggressively and successfully promoted its CSSB-97 grading rules

and its trademarked Certi-Label™ shakes and shingles. In order to distinguish products of

differing qualities, each certification has a stringent requirement setting forth how the product will

“grade,” taking into consideration numerous factors such as how clear the wood is, the thickness

of the product, and the grain of the wood. For instance, Certigrade® Shingles are broken down

into Number 1 Grade, Number 2 Grade, Number 3 Grade, and Undercoursing Grade products.

121. In order to comply with the applicable CSSB Grading Rules, any products that carry

a CSSB Certi-Label™ must strictly comply with the CSSB labeling rules and policies.

122. The CSSB Grading Rules and labeling policies come in three distinct colors:

Premium Grade and #1 Grade Certi-Label™s are blue; #2 Grade Certi-Label™s are red; and #3

Grade Certi-Label™s are black. For cedar products that are off grade because they do not meet

the CSSB Grading Rules, tan labels are assigned for these Mill Grade products.

123. As shown below the Premium Number 1 Grade CSSB Certi-Label™:






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

124. To maintain complete control, CSSB Members (Defendants and Co-Conspirators)

can only order the various Grading Certi-Label™s for their cedar product bundles directly from a

third-party—Intertek Testing Services NA Ltd. (“Intertek”) —which exclusively produces the

CSSB Certi-Label™ paper labels and distributes on behalf of the CSSB.

125. In order to police the strict adherence to the CSSB’s Grading Rules and labeling

policies, the CSSB employs a Cedar Quality Auditor. The Cedar Quality Auditor is responsible

for travel to the CSSB member cedar manufacturing mills to inspect packaged bundles of cedar

shakes and shingles to ensure that those products strictly adhere with the CSSB’s grading rules.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Clay Walker has served as the CSSB Cedar Quality Auditor since 2011 and had previously been

employed by Defendant Waldun, and its affiliate Twin Rivers Cedar, for over 30 years.

126. The CSSB also engages the inspection services of Intertek to inspect and confirm

compliance with the CSSB Grading Rules and labeling policies. The CSSB maintains complete

control over Intertek’s inspection services.

127. Prior to Clay Walker serving as the CSSB Cedar Quality Auditor, David Mooney

served as the CSSB Cedar Quality Auditor from 2000 to 2010 and subsequently was employed by

Intertek from 2011–2017 as an inspector. Wayne Rourke (“Rourke”) has also been employed by

Intertek as an inspector since 2004. Rourke was put on suspension in his role as inspector by the

CSSB and Intertek in the spring of 2019 for speaking outside the confines of Defendants’

conspiracy.

128. In an attempt to ensure that the Certi-Label™ maintains its dominant position in

the cedar shake and shingle market, the CSSB has issued warnings against using competing

products that amplify the alleged differences between Certi-Label™ cedar products and those of

“non-bureau” manufacturer mills.

129. An example of a CSSB issued “Fraud Alert” is shown below. In relevant part, the

CSSB “Fraud Alert” warns buyers that “just because it has a blue-colored label, does not mean it

is automatically a Certi-Label™.” “PITCH: ‘These products are just as good as Certi-label™

brand products, but they are cheaper/more readily available/what your roofing contractor prefers

to work with.’ Don’t believe these types of misleading statements. You get what you pay for.”






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3. The United States Market for Cedar Shakes and Shingles Is a National Market Worth Hundreds of Millions of Dollars Annually.

130. The demand for cedar shakes and shingles is driven by new residential and

commercial construction and repair and remodeling. Cedar is the most popular wood siding and

roofing choice, and offers advantages for insulation and durability over the more common asphalt

shingle roof. Approximately USD $5.6 billion of softwood lumber imports were reported by the

U.S. Commerce Department in 2017, including cedar, spruce, and Douglas fir. Cedar shakes and

shingles represent a substantial portion of this commerce. According to the official Canadian

export data, between 2011 and 2018, roughly $1.1 billion worth of cedar shakes and shingles were

imported into the United States from British Columbia, which is more than $139 million worth of

cedar shakes and shingles on average per year.

131. Cedar shakes and shingles are considerably more expensive than the alternative

roofing and siding materials (e.g., asphalt shingles and vinyl siding) because they are widely






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

considered to be more visually pleasing as well as more durable than alternative roofing and siding

products.

132. Generally, roofing and siding make up ten percent of the cost of a home, however,

the cost of cedar shakes and shingles is more than alternatives. Installing cedar roofing shingles

(for a roof size 1,400-2,100 square feet) currently costs approximately $12,800 - $19,700,

depending on the type and finish options. Because shakes are a premium quality product and are

also harder to install, installing cedar roofing shakes can cost up to 1.5-2 times as much as shingles.

On average, installation of cedar roofing shakes costs approximately $15,200 - $24,000 (for a roof

size 1,400-2,100 square feet), depending on the type and finish options.

4. The Price of Cedar Shakes and Shingles Has Risen Steadily Since 2011.

133. Since at least January 1, 2011, the price of cedar shakes and shingles has risen and

cannot be fully explained by normal market forces such as a corresponding increased raw material

costs or increased demand in the market place.

134. Since January 1, 2011, prices of Number 1 Grade products have surpassed pre-

recession levels and the prices of cedar shakes and shingles have consistently increased over time.

As shown by the graph below, prices of certain Number 1 Grade products have experienced ten-

percent (10%) year-over-year increases.3

3 Weekly price series as reported by Random Lengths Publications, Inc.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

135. Similarly, the price of low quality Grade 2 has also increased markedly since 2011,

as illustrated in the chart below:






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

136. The increase in prices for finished cedar shakes and shingles contrasts with much

lower price increases associated with softwood lumber—the main raw material and cost input for

these products—as well as the export price of Canadian coniferous timber over the same period.

137. The following chart shows the Producer Price Index (“PPI”) for Commodity data

for Lumber and Wood Products, and the Average Canadian export price index.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

138. Comparing the above series of price increases shows that prices for cedar shakes

and shingles have grown far more rapidly than the prices of other softwood lumber inputs and the

price of Canadian timber. This disparity in price increases is also indicated by the following chart:






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

139. The above charts and resulting analysis reveal that prices for cedar shakes and

shingles have exhibited a consistent increase since 2011 when, all else being equal, one would

expect a decline, as explained below.

140. The graph below further shows the continuous increased U.S. import prices of cedar

shingles and shakes from Canada.

141. Tariffs recently being considered for softwood lumber imports from Canada do not

explain the price increase in cedar shakes and shingles, since those tariffs have not actually been

implemented. While a September 2018 decision from the International Trade Administration

(“ITA”) suggested that cedar shakes and shingles are covered by the scope of a January 2018 tariff

order, cedar shake and shingle manufacturers have formed a Shake and Shingle Alliance to






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

challenge the ITA’s decision. The Shake and Shingle Alliance filed a lawsuit challenging the ITA

decision in the Court of International Trade on November 8, 2018. Information from the

International Trade Commission (“ITC”) currently shows cedar shakes and shingles as free of any

duty or tariff.4

5. Inventories of Cedar Shakes and Shingles Have Increased Substantially in Recent Years Compared to Manufacturing Levels, Which Suggests an Output Restriction by Manufacturers.

142. One indicia of anticompetitive behavior in an industry is unexplained increases in

inventories of a commodity product. The chart below is a monthly comparison of the value of

inventory of cedar shakes and siding to the value of cedar shakes and shingles manufactured each

month. The manufacture of new cedar shakes and shingles began declining in 2009 and remained

relatively low through 2016. However, beginning in 2012, the inventories of cedar shakes and

shingles maintained by these manufacturers started to increase substantially. At the same time, as

seen in the charts above, prices for shingles and shakes were generally increasing over this time

period. In a competitive market, manufacturers would opt to sell at a lower price rather than

accumulate inventory. This build-up of inventory is suggestive of anti-competitive restrictions by

manufacturers of cedar shakes and shingles in order to maintain or increase prices.

4 Harmonized Tariff Schedule, 2019 Basic Edition, #4418.50.00 Shingles and Shakes, https://hts.usitc.gov/?query=44185000.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

B. The Structure and Characteristics of the Cedar Shakes and Shingles Market, Together with Other Factors, Render the Conspiracy Economically Plausible.

1. The Cedar Shakes and Shingles Industry Is Highly Vertically Integrated.

143. The cedar shakes and shingles industry has become vertically integrated,

particularly by the Manufacturer Defendants. Defendant Waldun specifically notes on its website

that it “has integrated the various aspects of cedar manufacturing, producing cedar lumber, shakes,

and value-added rebutted and rejointed sidewall shingles.”5

2. The Market for Cedar Shakes and Shingles Is Characterized by Inelastic Supply and Demand.

144. Consumer demand for cedar shakes and shingles is relatively unaffected by price.

5 http://waldun.com/waldun/.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3. There Are No Significant Substitutes for Cedar Shakes and Shingles.

145. There are no significant substitutes for cedar shakes and shingles. While there are

potential substitute products—asphalt-shingle roofs, ceramic tile roofs, slate roofs, or other wood

siding—the characteristics of those products lack the unique characteristics of cedar wood. Cedar

shakes and shingles have a historic appearance and texture that cannot be attained with modern

products, plus they also have a longer durability that offers cost savings compared to other

products. Further, cedar shakes and shingles are only a small component of the overall cost of a

home or building, so consumers are unlikely to substitute other products in the face of increasing

prices.

4. The Cedar Shakes and Shingles Industry Has Experienced High Consolidation and Is Highly Concentrated.

146. The cedar shake and shingle industry has become significantly consolidated over

the past two decades, with Western Red Cedar and Alaskan Yellow Cedar shake and shingle

manufacturers now operating only in the Pacific Northwest. There are currently 45 total

manufacturers who are members of CSSB: seventeen manufacturers operating in Washington,

three operating in Idaho, and twenty-five operating in British Columbia.6 The CSSB also contains

Wholesale and Contractor members, with locations throughout the United States, Canada, and the

United Kingdom. Manufacturer Defendants are the largest members of the CSSB.

5. Defendants Had Numerous Opportunities to Collude.

a. Geographic Proximity.

147. The close proximity of Defendants and many Non-Defendant Co-Conspirators

6 The manufacturer list comes directly from the Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau website under “Find A Member” and specifically lists these business entities as manufacturers. See www.cedarbureau.org (last visited April 16, 2019).






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

provided ample opportunities to meet and discuss pricing and supply of cedar shakes and shingles.

Manufacturer Defendants are all located in the Vancouver, British Columbia metro area. Anbrook

is headquartered in Pitt Meadows, British Columbia, while Waldun is headquartered in the

neighboring city, Maple Ridge, British Columbia—approximately 16 miles (26 kilometers) east

of Anbrook. G&R Cedar is based in Chilliwack, which is less than 20 miles east of Waldun.

Additionally, Defendant CSSB is located just outside the Vancouver metro area in Mission, British

Columbia—approximately 7 miles (11 kilometers) east of Waldun. All four named Defendants

are located on or in close proximity to the Fraser River, the longest river in British Columbia which

empties into the Pacific Ocean, south of Vancouver, British Columbia.

148. There are also two geographic concentrations of CSSB manufacturer members on

the Olympic peninsula in Washington. Co-Conspirators A&R Cedar, Inc. and Best Shingle Sales,

Inc. are headquartered in Hoquiam, Washington, along with four other CSSB member

manufacturers in the Hoquiam area: #208 Shake & Shingle/Griffiths, Inc., ACS Cedar, Inc., Alfa

Red Cedar Products, and L&H Shake, Inc. Similarly, six CSSB member manufacturers are






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

concentrated around Forks, Washington: Long Cedar, Pacific Shingle, Pleasant Lake Cedar,

Premium Shingle LLC, Rainy Day Shake & Shingle Ltd., and Zoffel Logging & Milling, Inc.

149. The close proximity of Manufacturer Defendants and Non-Defendant Co-

Conspirators allows for easy access to meet and informally stop by each other’s offices to discuss

pricing and “debate on shake and shingle pricing.” In fact, on December 5, 2018, Defendant

Waldun visited Watkins Sawmills, to discuss pricing fluctuations that had been affecting the net

price. Curtis Walker, owner of Waldun and CSSB Board Member, admonished Kris Watkins,

Vice President at Watkins Sawmills, that Waldun never dropped its pricing and that Watkins

should not have dropped its pricing. This same conversation concerning pricing of cedar shakes

and shingles continued with “Walker arguing that CSSB mills should hold their prices at consistent

levels.”7

150. The close proximity of Defendants and the Non-Defendant Co-Conspirators

provided ample opportunities to meet and discuss the pricing of Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and

shingles, as well as to conspire to jointly boycott manufacturers that have attempted to discount

their Certi-Label™ products below the agreed-upon price levels.

151. In addition to the close geographical proximity of Defendants and the Non-

Defendant Co-Conspirators, family and personal relationships between the manufacturers easily

allows for Defendants to monitor and enforce the price-fixing scheme. Defendant Waldun’s

President Curtis Walker’s brother, Clay Walker, was the CSSB’s main Cedar Quality Auditor from

2011-2018 and now serves as the CSSB’s District Manager for the Pacific Northwest region. This

7 S&W Forest Products, Ltd. v. Cedar Shake & Shingle Bureau, Case No. 2:19-cv-00202, (W.D. Wash. Feb. 13, 2019). Dkt. 15 (Aff. Kris Watkins).






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

close familial relationship has allowed Defendants to easily oversee and regulate competitor

pricing activity in the cedar shake and shingle industry guised as a quality control effort. In reality,

Defendants are able to regulate competitor pricing activity through the inspection and Certi-

Label™ quality approval process.

b. Trade Associations.

(i) The CSSB Is the Sole Trade Association for Cedar Shakes and Shingles Manufacturers.

152. The Manufacturer Defendants and their Co-Conspirators are members of the CSSB,

which provided an important opportunity to meet and collude with one another.

153. According to its website, “the Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau® is a non-profit

organization that promotes the use of Certi-Label™® cedar roofing and sidewall products. On

June 9, 1915, at a meeting of the Trustees of the West Coast Lumber Manufacturers Association,

it was agreed to establish a branch of the association to serve those members who manufactured

shingles. Our influence grew, and as we survived both the Great Depression and World War II,

manufacturers continued their quality commitment. In 1963 the organization merged with the

Handsplit Shake Bureau to become the Red Cedar Shingle & Handsplit Shake Bureau.

Manufacturers’ product lines continued to broaden and, in 1988, the members changed the

organization's name to the Cedar Shake & Shingle Bureau®. In the late 1980s, mill quality control

inspections were subcontracted to independent, third party quality control agencies.”

154. Manufacturer Defendants each have executives who serve on the CSSB Board of

Directors. Brooke Meeker, President and CEO of Defendant Anbrook, has been a member of the

CSSB Board of Directors for more than 10 years, and is the current Board Chairperson. Curtis

Walker, President and CEO of Defendant Waldun, has been a member of the CSSB Board of






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Directors for more than 10 years, and is the current Secretary/Treasurer. G&R’s Sales Manager,

Stuart Dziedzic, currently sits on the CSSB Board of Directors. Other cedar shake and shingle

manufacturer companies, including Co-Conspirators serve on the CSSB Board of Directors.

155. In or around 2002, a competing trade association, the “B.C. Shake and Shingle

Association” (“BCSSA”) was “rejuvenated” by certain cedar shakes and shingle mills. The

BCSSA folded in or around late 2010. Thus, throughout the Class Period, the CSSB has been the

sole trade association for cedar shakes and shingles manufacturers and the preeminent regulator of

the cedar shakes and shingles industry in the United States and Canada.

156. Every year in late summer or early fall, the CSSB holds its Annual General

Meeting, which includes a meeting of the Board of Directors and attendance by other CSSB

members. For example, on October 23, 2013, the CSSB held its Annual General Meeting in Las

Vegas, Nevada at the Trump Hotel; on September 10-12, 2015, the CSSB held its Annual General

Meeting in Whistler, British Columbia; on August 26-27, 2016, the CSSB held its Annual General

Meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia; and on September 15, 2017, the CSSB held its Annual

General Meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia at the Fairmont Hotel.8

157. The Annual General Meetings have given Defendants and Co-Conspirators ample

opportunity to collude and discuss pricing strategies. The picture below from the 2016 Annual

General Meeting in Whistler, British Columbia shows CSSB member Defendants and Co-

Conspirators along with legal counsel, Larry Gangnes of Lane Powell PC, in a group photo

honoring the annual event’s sponsors.

8 Plaintiffs are not yet aware of the dates and locations of the Annual General Meetings held in 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2018.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

158. The CSSB publishes a regular newsletter, Certi-Scene™, in which the CSSB touts

the benefits of attending the Annual General Meeting as including the following: (a) “information

sharing and business education”; (b) “see[ing] what their association is doing to promote and

protect the Certi-label™ brand”; (c) “high levels of member engagement and excellent

conversation about protecting and promoting the Certi-label™ brand”; and (d) “enjoy[ing]

excellent networking with colleagues.”

159. The CSSB also holds regular conference calls and in person meetings throughout

the year. For instance, on February 17, 2016, the CSSB Board of Directors held a conference call,

which included a confidential portion to which members were not invited. On May 27, 2016, the

CSSB Board of Directors met in Ocean Shores, Washington.

160. Every November or December, the CSSB holds a “Ladies Luncheon.” For

example, on December 4, 2015, the CSSB held its annual Ladies Luncheon in Pitt Meadows,

British Columbia, and on November 25, 2016, the CSSB held its annual Ladies Luncheon in Maple

Ridge, British Columbia. The CSSB also holds various ad hoc events during the year attended by






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

the Manufacturer Defendants’ senior executives. For instance, on December 17, 2015, the CSSB

hosted a Lifetime Achievement Awards luncheon in Bellingham, Washington.

161. These meetings provide Manufacturer Defendants and Non-Defendant Co-

Conspirators numerous opportunities to conspire on the pricing of Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and

shingles and to collude in the control of manufacturers who attempt to compete on pricing.

(ii) Prior to the Class Period, the BCSSA Was Eliminated.

162. As noted above, an alternative cedar shakes and shingles trade association, the

BCSSA, was “rejuvenated” by certain cedar shakes and shingles mills in or around 2002.

163. As a precondition to its rejuvenation, BCSSA agreed “not overlap or duplicate

efforts” with the CSSB.

164. The BCSSA repeatedly lamented competition among cedar shakes and shingles

mills. For example, a February 6, 2006 BCSSA newsletter noted: “This opinion, shared by more

than a few: While we have spent the last 20 years infighting over the existing market share with

private brands and independent marketing, and pointing fingers at each other as competitors in the

industry, our real competitors of fake shakes and imitations have enjoyed little resistance from us

as they increase their market share, even trade marking our product names! This clarifies the need

to continue delivering the truth about real shakes and shingles to as much of the public as we are

able to.”

165. As another example, a February 26, 2007 BCSSA newsletter stated: “As I see it,

over the last number of years we haven’t stood up for our real cedar and industry terms, we’ve just

competed inside our existing market share with who’s better than the next guy. Imagine the

possibilities if we all actually promoted and marketed real cedar shakes and shingles as the finest

roofing product in the world!”






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

166. In or around May of 2009, Defendant Anbrook joined the BCSSA. At the same

time, the BCSSA noted “the production slowdown” in the cedar shakes and shingles industry, and

that the industry had fallen on “tough economic times.”

167. There was significant overlap in the CSSB Board of Directors and the BCSSA

Board of Directors in or around 2008-2010. For example, during this period, S&W’s Lenny

Watkins was a member of both Boards of Directors; Pacific Coast Cedar’s George Klassen was a

BCSSA Director while his daughter, Kathy Klassen (also of Pacific Coast Cedar), was a CSSB

Director; and Imperial Cedar’s Mike Gill was a BCSSA Director and Imperial Cedar’s Chris Barry

was a CSSB Director.

168. Shortly thereafter, in or around late 2010, BCSSA dissolved. The circumstances

surrounding the BCSSA’s closure are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, but Plaintiffs believe that

discovery will reveal an agreement between BCSSA and CSSB to combine their operations.

169. The elimination of the BCSSA in late 2010 resulted in CSSB being the only

remaining cedar shakes and shingles trade association.

6. There Are High Barriers to Entry in the Cedar Shakes and Shingles Market.

170. There are significant barriers to entering the United States market for high-end

cedar shakes and shingles. In order to effectively compete with cedar shake and shingle products,

the product must be CSSB Certi-Label™ed. Although non-CSSB or “non-bureau” manufacturers

can produce shingles that comply with the CSSB-97 grading rules, there is at least a 15% or more

price difference between CSSB Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles and the same grades

produced by non-bureau manufacturers. This prevents non-bureau manufacturers from being able

to compete effectively for the high-cost cedar logs and cut blocks needed to make cedar shakes






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

and shingles. A manufacturer participant in the cedar shakes and shingles market is thus required

to be a member of the CSSB in order to compete.

171. “Without the CSSB Certi-Labels™,” Manufacturer Defendants and Co-

Conspirators products would “sell for prices that are 15%-25% lower than CSSB Certi-Labeled™

products.” “Access to the CSSB Certi-Label™ is the only way to effectively compete” in the high-

end shake and shingle cedar products market.9 “A non-CSSB mill is not in any position to

effectively compete in the U.S. market for high-end shakes and shingles” because of the drastic

difference in pricing.

172. Membership in the CSSB trade association is a necessary prerequisite to any

manufacturer of cedar shakes and shingles being able to effectively compete in the domestic

market for high-end shakes and shingles.

173. The Certi-Label™ has become the gold standard in the shake and shingle business.

A manufacturer must have access to the label to sell its products in the high-end shake and shingle

market in the United States. The CSSB label is perceived as guaranteeing a certain level of quality

in the product. Due to the market perception and reputation, many architects and builders require

Certi-Label™ products in their building specifications. Along with those spec jobs, customers in

many regions of the country such as the northeastern United States, Pacific Northwest, Mountain

West, and Midwest, purchase Certi-Label™ products nearly exclusively.

174. As a result, during the last 20 years, virtually all of the manufacturers of high-end

cedar shakes and shingles utilized on roofs and exterior walls of residential dwellings and

commercial buildings in the United States are members of the CSSB.

9 Id. Dkt. 11 (Aff. Michael Watkins) Feb. 14, 2019.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

175. Without the Blue Certi-Label™, manufacturers would be limited in their marketing

and sales of their products. Indeed, the CSSB also warns consumers about the potential use of

products bearing competing labels that are not CSSB Certi-Label™, further amplifying the

purported difference between products bearing the trade association’s trademark and those that do

not.

176. Throughout the Class Period, the CSSB by-laws have prevented its manufacturer

members from producing non- Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and shingles which has been referred

to inside the CSSB as the “All or Nothing Rule.” Specifically, Article III § 2 of the CSSB by-laws

provides, in relevant part, that “[t]o become a Mill-Member, a person or entity must: (a)

manufacture or process only Products that comply with CSSB’s Product quality, inspection,

grading and labeling policies, procedures, rules, regulations and standards.”

177. The “All or Nothing Rule” was strengthened by the CSSB Board in November

2018—on the motion and second of Waldun’s Walker and Anbrook’s Meeker—to “ensure that all

enterprises owned, operated, or controlled by a Member that are involved in the manufacture,

distribution, or sale of [cedar shakes and shingles] apply for and become CSSB Members,” such

that they could only manufacture, distribute, and sell Certi-Label™ product.

178. Under the terms of the “All or Nothing Rule,” a cedar shake and shingle

manufacturer would be expelled from the CSSB if it manufactured and sold any cedar shakes or

shingles that did not carry the Certi-Label™. Because the price of Certi-Label™ cedar shakes and

shingles was fixed pursuant to an anticompetitive agreement, this rule prevented CSSB members

from undercutting the conspiracy by selling non-Certi-Label™ product at lower prices. The “All

or Nothing Rule” therefore had the purpose and effect of preventing price competition between






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

CSSB manufacturers.

C. Manufacturer Defendants and Co-Conspirators Have Worked Through the CSSB Structure and Bylaws to Fix the Price of Cedar Shakes and Shingles.

179. The market consolidation in the cedar shake and shingle manufacturing industry

has evolved so that the CSSB has become the key vehicle for the Manufacturer Defendants to

artificially raise the price of cedar shakes and shingles. Under the auspices of the Certi-Label™

labeling program, which accounts for the vast majority of cedar shakes and shingles sold in the

United States (see above), Defendants enacted a scheme to fix pricing and restrict supply from

cedar shake and shingle manufacturers.

180. The CSSB requires that all members strictly adhere to the CSSB Manufacturing

Membership Agreement which specifically limits CSSB Members in the right to use the CSSB

Certi-Label™—except with the permission of the CSSB based on the binding terms and conditions

of the Membership Agreement.

181. The CSSB Membership Agreement limits CSSB Members from directly or

indirectly competing or having any interest in a business, manufacturing facility, or enterprise

which competes with the business conducted by the CSSB.

182. Due to consolidation and the weighted voting structure of the CSSB, Manufacturer

Defendants have obtained a concentration of power in the CSSB. Manufacturer Defendants have

increased Manufacturer Defendants’ collective voting power through a series of Board actions in

November 2016, November 2017, and November 2018. The CSSB bylaw amendments have

reduced the number of seats on the CSSB Board over the last several years and the size of the

quorum requirement for the annual general membership meeting. As a result of these actions,

Manufacturer Defendants now effectively control the CSSB vote.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

183. The weighted voting structure of the CSSB has intentionally allowed the

Manufacturer Defendants to maintain exclusive control and dominate decision-making at the

CSSB.

184. The Manufacturer Defendants have sat on the CSSB’s board since at least 2012.

During this same time period, representation by other cedar shake and shingle manufacturers has

been reduced:

185. On information and belief, no later than January 1, 2011, Manufacturer Defendants

and CSSB began conspiring and colluding to fix prices for cedar shakes and shingle products sold

into the United States market. Manufacturer Defendants—the largest manufacturer members of

the Board of Directors—continued to put pressure on other CSSB members to hold their prices at

consistent levels. Manufacturer Defendants and CSSB conspired to eliminate or discipline other

CSSB members who tried to compete on price and who are unwilling to follow the price and

product leadership of Manufacturer Defendants.

186. As described by one former CSSB member, S&W: “Throughout the four years

predating the filing of this complaint (S&W Litigation), defendant Waldun’s Curtis Walker and






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

defendant Anbrook’s Brooke Meeker have regularly conspired and colluded to fix prices for cedar

shake and shingle products sold into the United States market and have encouraged other mill

manufacturers to join in that price collusion.”10 Upon information and belief, the price collusion

among the Manufacturer Defendants began at least by January 1, 2011and continues through

present day.

187. S&W was allegedly terminated from CSSB when it refused to participate in the

conspiracy.11 According to S&W, it was forced out of the CSSB during a “hastily convened

special meeting by telephone conference call” involving an unknown members of the CSSB Board

of Directors.12 S&W maintains that the reason given for termination—a mislabeling violation—

is false and unsupported: “Despite these facts, several CSSB Directors who are executives with

Waldun, Anbrook and a number of other large member mills successfully secured a three-fourths

vote in favor of terminating S&W’s CSSB membership, not because of a mislabeling violation but

in pursuit of their conspiracy to eliminate a competitor unwilling to engage in price fixing or

collusion.”13

188. S&W specifically states that the reason it was terminated from the CSSB was

because it would not participate in price fixing. “Waldun’s Curtis Walker and defendant

Anbrook’s Brooke Meeker conspired throughout November and December 2018 to find a means

of eliminating S&W as a competitor. In a meeting with Kris Watkins of Watkins Sawmills Ltd.

on December 5, 2018, Curtis Walker stated that CSSB member mills should hold their prices at

10 Complaint ¶ 24, S&W Forest Products, Ltd. v. Cedar Shake & Shingle Bureau, Case No. 2:19-cv-00202 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 13, 2019).

11 Id. at ¶¶ 27-35. 12 Id. at ¶ 26. 13 Id. at ¶ 10.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

consistent levels. He expressed anger about S&W’s willingness to compete on price for shake and

shingle products. He became very agitated during his comments about S&W and stated: ‘yeah,

well we just need to get rid of that guy.’”14

189. On December 5, 2018, Curtis Walker was authorized by Waldun to make

statements on the subject of cedar shake and shingle pricing.

190. In furtherance of Defendant Waldun and Defendant Anbrook’s pressure to maintain

certain pricing levels, Len Taylor, the President and Owner of Taylor Forest Products, Inc., also

submitted a declaration in support of the S&W litigation. Mr. Taylor specifically recalls a business

trip to Chilliwack, British Columbia in the last five years in which he met with Stuart Dziedzic,

G&R’s Sales Manager, who indicated after getting off a phone call that “some competitors were

being tough on him and wanted him to raise G&R’s shake and shingle prices.” Mr. Taylor further

stated that with a “100% certainty that he told” him that the call between Dziedzic was with “either

Brooke Meeker of Anbrook Industries or Curtis Walker of Waldun Forest Products.”15

191. G&R’s Dziedzic submitted a declaration in opposition to S&W’s motion for a

preliminary injunction in the S&W Lawsuit but made no attempt to refute Taylor’s sworn

declaration.

192. Len Taylor further stated that he “had always suspected that there was some

collusion within the shake and shingle cedar industry, but it was disheartening to see that two of

the major players in the industry (Waldun Forest Products and Anbrook Industries) were engaged

in that type of business behavior.”16

14 Id. at ¶ 35. 15 Taylor Decl. at ¶ 5, Dkt. 16, S&W Forest Products, Ltd. v. Cedar Shake & Shingle Bureau, Case No. 2:19-cv-

00202 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 13, 2019). 16 Id. at ¶ 7






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

193. The Former CSSB Members include at least another twenty cedar shakes and

shingles manufacturers (in addition to S&W) that have left the CSSB since 2012. Many of these

Former CSSB Members are no longer in business.

194. For example, a Former CSSB Member confirmed that the S&W expulsion was

standard operating procedure for any company that crossed the Manufacturer Defendants. This

Former CSSB Member stated that Waldun’s Walker—in concert with the CSSB Board of

Directors and his brother, Clay Walker—expelled his company from the CSSB because he refused

to sell product at a loss to Waldun. The day after this refusal, CSSB’s Clay Walker arrived at this

Former CSSB Member’s facility and confiscated all of his Certi-Label™ tags. Roughly one week

later, the CSSB expelled this Former CSSB Member from the CSSB because he was allegedly

violating CSSB-97. This Former CSSB Member promptly called Waldun’s Walker and asked him

why he had been expelled from the CSSB; Walker responded: “Because you made me mad that’s

why!”

195. The CSSB and the Manufacturer Defendants’ exclusionary conduct is so well

known in the cedar shakes and shingles industry that another Former CSSB Member referred to

them as the “Mafia.” Others in the industry believe that the relationship between CSSB’s Clay

Walker and Waldun’s Walker give the Defendants pretextual justifications to easily punish

companies—such as S&W—that deviate from the Defendants’ orders.

196. Defendants’ and Co-Conspirators’ collusive conduct had the intended purpose and

effect of increasing the price of cedar shakes and shingles sold to Plaintiffs and the other members

of the Classes.

197. Throughout the Class Period, the Manufacturer Defendants have utilized their






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

weighted voting power to consolidate their power over the CSSB by, among other things, adopting

bylaw changes that reduced the number of seats on the Board of Directors, reducing membership

meeting quorum requirements from 40% to 30%, and ensuring the Board chairperson was not

constrained by the historic practice of only voting in the event of a tie but instead was fully afforded

voting rights like any other member of the Board of Directors.

198. On information and belief, Defendants’ actions had the intended purpose and effect

of increasing the price of cedar shakes and shingles to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes.

VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

199. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, and as a class action under the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3), seeking injunctive relief pursuant

to federal law, and damages pursuant to various state antitrust, unfair competition, unjust

enrichment, and consumer protection laws of the states listed below on behalf of the members of

the following classes:

A. Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased Cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in the United States during the Class Period.

B. Alaska Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Alaska during the Class Period.

C. Arizona Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Arizona during the Class Period.

D. Arkansas Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Arkansas during the Class Period.

E. California Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in California during the Class Period.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

F. Colorado Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Colorado during the Class Period.

G. Delaware Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Delaware during the Class Period.

H. District of Columbia Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in the District of Columbia during the Class Period.

I. Florida Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Florida during the Class Period.

J. Georgia Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes and shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Georgia during the Class Period.

K. Hawaii Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Hawaii during the Class Period.

L. Illinois Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Illinois during the Class Period.

M. Iowa Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Iowa during the Class Period.

N. Kansas Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Kansas during the Class Period.

O. Maine Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Maine during the Class Period.

P. Massachusetts Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Massachusetts during the Class Period.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Q. Michigan Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Michigan during the Class Period.

R. Minnesota Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Minnesota during the Class Period.

S. Mississippi Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Mississippi during the Class Period.

T. Missouri Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Missouri during the Class Period.

U. Montana Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Montana during the Class Period.

V. Nebraska Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Nebraska during the Class Period.

W. Nevada Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Nevada during the Class Period.

X. New Hampshire Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in New Hampshire during the Class Period.

Y. New Mexico class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in New Mexico during the Class Period.

Z. New York Class: All persons and who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in New York during the Class Period.

AA. North Carolina Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in North Carolina during the Class Period.

BB. North Dakota Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

in North Dakota during the Class Period.

CC. Oregon Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Oregon during the Class Period.

DD. Rhode Island Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Rhode Island during the Class Period.

EE. South Carolina Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in South Carolina during the Class Period.

FF. South Dakota Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in South Dakota during the Class Period.

GG. Tennessee Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Tennessee during the Class Period.

HH. Utah Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Utah during the Class Period.

II. Vermont Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Vermont during the Class Period.

JJ. Virginia Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Virginia during the Class Period.

KK. West Virginia Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in West Virginia during the Class Period.

LL. Wisconsin Class: All persons and entities who indirectly purchased cedar shakes or shingles bearing the CSSB Certi-Label™ for end use and not for resale in Wisconsin during the Class Period

200. The Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class and the State Classes are collectively

referred to as the “Classes” unless otherwise indicated. Specifically excluded from these Classes






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

are the Defendants; the officers, directors, or employees of any Defendant; any entity in which any

Defendant has a controlling interest; and any affiliate, legal representative, heir, or assign of any

Defendant. Also excluded from these Classes are any federal, state, or local governmental entities,

any judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of his/her immediate family and

judicial staff, any juror assigned to this action, and any co-conspirator identified in this action.

Further excluded from the Classes and National Injunctive Relief Class are purchases of value

added products not manufactured, supplied, or processed by Defendants, or otherwise not under

the control of Defendants.

201. Class Period: The Class Period is presently defined as January 1, 2011 to the

present. Additional discovery may reveal that the conduct alleged in this Amended Complaint

commenced at an earlier time, and Plaintiffs reserve all rights to amend the complaint as

appropriate.

202. Class Identity: The above-defined Classes are readily identifiable and is one for

which records should exist.

203. Numerosity: Plaintiffs do not know the exact number of members of the Classes

because such information presently is in the exclusive control of Defendants, retailers, resellers,

and other entities in the supply chain of cedar shakes and shingles. Plaintiffs believe that due to

the nature of the trade and commerce involved, there are thousands of members of the Classes

geographically dispersed throughout the United States, such that joinder of all class members is

impracticable.

204. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the

Classes because Plaintiffs purchased cedar shakes and shingles indirectly from one or more of the






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Defendants for end use and not for resale, and therefore Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the same

common course of conduct giving rise to the claims of the Classes and the relief sought is common

to the Classes.

205. Common Questions Exist and Predominate Over Any Individual Questions:

There are questions of law and fact common to the Classes, including, but not limited to:

A. Whether Defendants and their Co-Conspirators engaged in an agreement, combination, or conspiracy to fix, raise, elevate, maintain, or stabilize prices of cedar shakes and shingles sold in interstate commerce in the United States;

B. The identity of the participants of the alleged conspiracy;

C. The duration of the conspiracy alleged herein and the acts performed by Defendants and their Co-Conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy;

D. Whether the alleged conspiracy violated the antitrust and consumer protection laws of the various states;

E. Whether the conduct of Defendants and their Co-Conspirators, as alleged in this Amended Complaint, caused injury to the business or property of the Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes;

F. The effect of Defendants’ alleged conspiracy on the prices of cedar shakes and shingles sold in the United States during the Class Period;

G. Whether Plaintiffs and other members of the Classes are entitled to, among other things, injunctive relief and if so, the nature and extent of such injunctive relief; and

H. The appropriate class-wide measure of damages.

These and other questions of law and fact, which are common to the members of the Classes,

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Classes.

206. Adequacy: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Classes

in that Plaintiffs’ interests are aligned with, and not antagonistic to, those of the other members of

the Classes who indirectly purchased cedar shakes and shingles from Defendants and Plaintiffs






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

have retained counsel competent and experienced in the prosecution of class actions and antitrust

litigation to represent themselves and the Classes.

207. Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and

efficient adjudication of this controversy since individual joinder of all damaged members of the

Classes is impractical. Prosecution as a class action will eliminate the possibility of duplicative

litigation. The relatively small damages suffered by individual members of the Classes compared

to the expense and burden of individual prosecution of the claims asserted in this litigation means

that, absent a class action, it would not be feasible for members of the Classes to seek redress for

the violations of law herein alleged. Further, individual litigation presents the potential for

inconsistent or contradictory judgments and would greatly magnify the delay and expense to all

parties and to the court system. Therefore, a class action presents far fewer case management

difficulties and will provide the benefits of unitary adjudication, economy of scale and

comprehensive supervision by a single court.

208. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Classes would

create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications, establishing incompatible standards of

conduct for Defendants.

209. Plaintiffs bring the Classes on behalf of all persons similarly situated pursuant to

Rule 23, on behalf of all persons and entities that, as residents of various states, indirectly

purchased one or more cedar shakes and shingles that a defendant or co-conspirator produced for

end use and not for resale during the respective Class Periods.

210. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the Nationwide

Injunctive Relief Class, thereby making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to that Class






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

as a whole.

VII. ANTITRUST INJURY

211. Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct had the following effects, among others:

I. Price competition has been restrained or eliminated with respect to cedar shakes and shingles;

J. The prices of cedar shakes and shingles have been fixed, raised, stabilized, or maintained at artificially inflated levels;

K. Indirect purchasers of cedar shakes and shingles have been deprived of free and open competition; and

L. End-users purchasers of cedar shakes and shingles who indirectly purchased cedar shakes and shingles for end use and not for resale, including Plaintiff, paid artificially inflated prices.

212. Cedar shakes and shingles are manufactured by Defendants from cedar logs, then

sold through various distribution channels.

213. The cedar shakes and shingles that Plaintiffs and members of the Classes purchased

were in substantially the same form as when they were initially sold by Defendants. As a result,

the cedar shakes and shingles follow a traceable physical chain from Defendants to the Plaintiffs

and members of the Classes, and the overcharges on cedar shakes and shingles can be traced from

Defendants to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes. In fact, the Certi-Label™ is present on all

cedar shakes and shingles sold by Manufacturer Defendants and permits the tracing of each product

to the specific manufacturer.

214. As a matter of economic principle, firms must recover the short-run variable costs

of production when they price their products for the market, which ultimately get passed to

consumers in the form of higher retail prices. For a firm to be a profitable valid concern, the firm

must recover its marginal cost of production. In a perfectly competitive market, firms price at






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

marginal cost and when marginal costs increase, the cost increases are passed through to the

consumer 1:1 or at a 100 percent pass through rate. As a general matter, the pass through rate will

be determined by the relative elasticities of supply and demand. When demand is inelastic (as it

likely is for cedar shakes and shingles), the pass-through rate to end users is at or near 100 percent.

215. Consequently, while the direct purchasers were the first to pay supra-competitive

prices, all or most of the overcharge was passed along the distribution chain and absorbed by

Plaintiffs and members of the Classes when they purchased the cedar shakes and shingles for end

use and not for resale.

216. Commonly used and well-accepted economic models can be used to measure both

the extent and the amount of the supra-competitive charge passed through the chain of distribution

to end-user consumers. Thus, the economic harm to Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes can

be quantified.

217. The purpose of the conspiratorial conduct of the Defendants and their Co-

Conspirators was to raise, fix, or maintain the price of cedar shakes and shingles and, as a direct

and foreseeable result. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes paid supra-competitive prices for

cedar shakes and shingles during the Class Period.

218. By reason of the alleged violations of the antitrust laws, Plaintiffs and members of

the Classes have sustained injury to their businesses or property, having paid higher prices for

cedar shakes and shingles than they would have paid in the absence of Defendants’ illegal contract,

combination, or conspiracy, and as a result have suffered damages.

219. This is an antitrust injury of the type that the antitrust laws were meant to punish

and prevent.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

VIII. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT & TOLLING

220. Plaintiffs had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of the facts constituting

their claim for relief.

221. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes did not discover, and could not have

discovered through the existence of reasonable diligence, the existence of the alleged conspiracy

alleged herein until on or about February 13, 2019, the date on which the S&W Lawsuit was filed.

222. Defendants and the Non-Defendant Co-Conspirators engaged in a secret conspiracy

that did not reveal facts that would put Plaintiffs and members of the Classes on inquiry notice that

there was a conspiracy to fix the prices of Certi-Label™ CSS and to expel price discounters from

the CSSB.

223. Accordingly, Plaintiffs could not have had either actual or constructive knowledge

of the conspiracy until the S&W Lawsuit was filed.

224. Furthermore, Defendants and the Non-Defendant Co-Conspirators took active steps

to conceal the conspiracy and to prevent Plaintiffs and members of the Classes from discovering

the conspiracy’s existence until the S&W Lawsuit was filed. For instance, in order to discuss and

implement the conspiracy, Defendants and their Co-Conspirators met in private at their places of

business and during CSSB meetings that were not open to the public. They also discussed the

conspiracy during private telephone calls. Finally, Defendants and their Co-Conspirators did not

reveal in their price increase announcements or otherwise that a reason for the price increases and

price levels during the Class Period was the anticompetitive conspiracy described herein. Rather,

Defendants and their Co-Conspirators blamed the diminishing availability of logs as a reason for

increased CSS prices. Even if it is true that the availability of logs led in part to increased prices,






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Defendants affirmatively concealed the fact that the price increases were also due to their collusive

conduct.

225. Because the alleged conspiracy was kept secret, Plaintiffs and members of the

Classes were unaware of this unlawful conduct alleged herein and did not know that the prices

they paid for Certi-Label™ CSS were artificially high during the Class Period.

IX. VIOLATION OF SECTION 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF SECTION 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT 15 U.S.C. § 1

(ON BEHALF OF NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASS)

226. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege, as though fully set forth herein, each and every

allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Amended Complaint.

227. Beginning at a time currently unknown to Plaintiffs, but at least as early as January

1, 2011 (further investigation and discovery may reveal an earlier date), and continuing through

the present, the exact dates being unknown to Plaintiffs, Defendants and their Co-Conspirators

entered into a continuing agreement, understanding, and conspiracy in restraint of trade artificially

to fix, raise, stabilize, and peg prices for cedar shakes and shingles in the United States, in violation

of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1).

228. In formulating and carrying out the alleged agreement, understanding, and

conspiracy, the Defendants and their Co-Conspirators did those things that they combined and

conspired to do, including but not limited to the acts, practices, and course of conduct set forth

above, and the following, among others:

A. Fixing, raising, stabilizing, and pegging the price of cedar shakes and shingles; and

B. Allocating among themselves and collusively reducing the production of cedar shakes and shingles.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

229. The combination and conspiracy alleged herein has had the following effects,

among others:

A. Price competition in the sale of cedar shakes and shingles has been restrained, suppressed, and/or eliminated in the United States;

B. Prices for cedar shakes and shingles sold by Defendants and all of their Co-Conspirators have been fixed, raised, maintained and stabilized at artificially high, non-competitive levels throughout the United States; and

C. Those who purchased cedar shakes and shingles indirectly from Defendants and their Co-Conspirators for their personal use have been deprived of the benefits of free and open competition.

230. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class have been injured

and will continue to be injured in their businesses and property by paying more for cedar shakes

and shingles purchased indirectly from the Defendants and their Co-Conspirators for their personal

use than they would have paid and will pay in the absence of the combination and conspiracy.

231. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class are entitled to an

injunction against Defendants, preventing and restraining the violations alleged herein.

X. VIOLATIONS OF STATE ANTITRUST LAWS

232. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.

233. The following Second through Twenty-Sixth Claims for Relief are pleaded under

the antitrust laws of each State or jurisdiction identified below, on behalf of the indicated class.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF ARIZONA’S UNIFORM STATE ANTITRUST ACT,

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 44-1401, ET SEQ. (ON BEHALF OF THE ARIZONA CLASS)



235. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have violated Arizona Rev.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Stat. § 44-1401, et seq.

236. Defendants entered into a contract, combination, or conspiracy between two or

more persons in restraint of, or to monopolize, trade or commerce in the cedar shakes and shingles

market, a substantial part of which occurred within Arizona.

237. Defendants established, maintained, or used a monopoly, or attempted to establish

a monopoly, of trade or commerce in the Relevant Markets, a substantial part of which occurred

within Arizona, for the purpose of excluding competition or controlling, fixing, or maintaining

prices in the cedar shakes and shingles market.

238. Defendants’ violations of Arizona law were flagrant.

239. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially affected Arizona’s trade and

commerce.

240. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, members of the

Arizona Class have been injured in their business or property and are threatened with further injury.

241. By reason of the foregoing, members of the Arizona Class are entitled to seek all

forms of relief available under Arizona Revised Statute § 44-1401, et seq.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S CARTWRIGHT ACT,

CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 16700, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CLASS)



243. The California Business & Professions Code generally governs conduct of

corporate entities. The Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16700-16770, governs antitrust

violations in California.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

244. California policy is that “vigorous representation and protection of consumer

interests are essential to the fair and efficient functioning of a free enterprise market economy,”

including by fostering competition in the marketplace. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 301.

245. Under the Cartwright Act, indirect purchasers have standing to maintain an action

based on the facts alleged in this Amended Complaint. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16750(a).

246. A trust in California is any combination intended for various purposes, including

but not limited to creating or carrying out restrictions in trade or commerce, limiting or reducing

the production or increasing the price of merchandise, or preventing competition in the market for

a commodity. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16720. Every trust in California is unlawful except as

provided by the Code. Id. at § 16726.

247. Members of the California Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within the

State of California during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein, the price

per pound of cedar shakes and shingles would have been lower, in an amount to be determined at

trial.

248. Defendants enacted a combination of capital, skill or acts for the purpose of creating

and carrying out restrictions in trade or commerce, in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16700,

et seq.

249. Members of the California Class were injured in their business or property, with

respect to purchases of cedar shakes and shingles in California and are entitled to all forms of

relief, including recovery of treble damages, interest, and injunctive relief, plus reasonable

attorneys’ fees and costs.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ANTITRUST ACT,

D.C. CODE § 28-4501, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CLASS)



251. The policy of District of Columbia Code, Title 28, Chapter 45 (Restraints of Trade)

is to “promote the unhampered freedom of commerce and industry throughout the District of

Columbia by prohibiting restraints of trade and monopolistic practices.”

252. Members of the District of Columbia Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles

within the District of Columbia during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth

herein, the price per pound of cedar shakes and shingles would have been lower, in an amount to

be determined at trial.

253. Under District of Columbia law, indirect purchasers have standing to maintain an

action under the antitrust provisions of the D.C. Code based on the facts alleged in this Amended

Complaint, because “any indirect purchaser in the chain of manufacture, production or distribution

of goods...shall be deemed to be injured within the meaning of this chapter.” D.C. Code § 28-

4509(a).

254. Defendants contracted, combined or conspired to act in restraint of trade within the

District of Columbia, and monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for cedar shakes

and shingles within the District of Columbia, in violation of D.C. Code § 28-4501, et seq.

255. Members of the District of Columbia Class were injured with respect to purchases

of cedar shakes and shingles in the District of Columbia and are entitled to all forms of relief,

including actual damages, treble damages, and interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS ANTITRUST ACT,

740 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 10/3(1), ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS CLASS)



257. The Illinois Antitrust Act, 740 ILCS 10/1, et seq., aims “to promote the unhampered

growth of commerce and industry throughout the State by prohibiting restraints of trade which are

secured through monopolistic or oligarchic practices and which act or tend to act to decrease

competition between and among persons engaged in commerce and trade. . . .” 740 ILCS 10/2.

258. Members of the Illinois Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within the State

of Illinois during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein, the price per

pound of cedar shakes and shingles would have been lower, in an amount to be determined at trial.

259. Under the Illinois Antitrust Act, indirect purchasers have standing to maintain an

action for damages based on the facts alleged in this Amended Complaint. 740 ILCS 10/7(2).

260. Defendants made contracts or engaged in a combination or conspiracy with each

other, though they would have been competitors but for their prior agreement, for the purpose of

fixing, controlling or maintaining prices for cedar shakes and shingles sold, and/or for allocating

customers or markets for cedar shakes and shingles within the intrastate commerce of Illinois.

261. Defendants further unreasonably restrained trade or commerce and established,

maintained or attempted to acquire monopoly power over the market for cedar shakes and shingles

in Illinois for the purpose of excluding competition, in violation of 740 ILCS 10/1, et seq.

262. Members of the Illinois Class were injured with respect to purchases of cedar

shakes and shingles in Illinois and are entitled to all forms of relief, including actual damages,






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

treble damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE IOWA COMPETITION LAW

IOWA CODE § 553.1, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE IOWA CLASS)



264. The Iowa Competition Law aims to “prohibit[] restraint of economic activity and

monopolistic practices.” Iowa Code § 553.2.

265. Members of the Iowa Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within the State

of Iowa during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein, the price per pound

of cedar shakes and shingles would have been lower, in an amount to be determined at trial.

266. Defendants contracted, combined or conspired to restrain or monopolize trade in

the market for cedar shakes and shingles, and attempted to establish or did in fact establish a

monopoly for the purpose of excluding competition or controlling, fixing or maintaining prices for

cedar shakes and shingles, in violation of Iowa Code § 553.1, et seq.

267. Members of the Iowa Class were injured with respect to purchases of cedar shakes

and shingles in Iowa, and are entitled to all forms of relief, including actual damages, exemplary

damages for willful conduct, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and injunctive relief.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE KANSAS RESTRAINT OF TRADE ACT

KAN. STAT. ANN. § 50-101, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE KANSAS CLASS)








1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

269. The Kansas Restraint of Trade Act aims to prohibit practices which, inter alia, “tend

to prevent full and free competition in the importation, transportation or sale of articles imported

into this state.” Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-112.

270. Members of the Kansas Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within the State

of Kansas during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein, the price per


271. Under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act, indirect purchasers have standing to

maintain an action based on the facts alleged in this Amended Complaint. Kan. Stat. Ann § 50-

161(b).

272. Defendants combined capital, skill or acts for the purposes of creating restrictions

in trade or commerce of cedar shakes and shingles, increasing the price of cedar shakes and

shingles, preventing competition in the sale of cedar shakes and shingles, or binding themselves

not to sell cedar shakes and shingles, in a manner that established the price of cedar shakes and

shingles and precluded free and unrestricted competition among themselves in the sale of cedar

shakes and shingles, in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-101, et seq.

273. Members of the Kansas Class were injured with respect to purchases of cedar

shakes and shingles in Kansas and are entitled to all forms of relief, including actual damages,

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and injunctive relief.

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE MAINE’S ANTITRUST STATUTE

ME. REV. STAT. ANN. TIT. 10 § 1101, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE MAINE CLASS)








1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

275. Part 3 of Title 10 the Maine Revised Statutes generally governs regulation of trade

in Maine. Chapter 201 thereof governs monopolies and profiteering, generally prohibiting

contracts in restraint of trade and conspiracies to monopolize trade. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit. 10,

§§ 1101-02.

276. Members of the Maine Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within the State

of Maine during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein, the price per


277. Under Maine law, indirect purchasers have standing to maintain an action based on

the facts alleged in this Amended Complaint. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit. 10, § 1104(1).

278. Defendants contracted, combined or conspired in restraint of trade or commerce of

cedar shakes and shingles within the intrastate commerce of Maine, and monopolized or attempted

to monopolize the trade or commerce of cedar shakes and shingles within the intrastate commerce

of Maine, in violation of Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit. 10, § 1101, et seq.

279. Members of the Maine Class were injured with respect to purchases of cedar shakes

and shingles in Maine and are entitled to all forms of relief, including actual damages, treble

damages, reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees and costs.

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN ANTITRUST REFORM ACT

MICH. COMP. LAWS § 445.771, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE MICHIGAN CLASS)



281. The Michigan Antitrust Reform Act aims “to prohibit contracts, combinations, and

conspiracies in restraint of trade or commerce...to prohibit monopolies and attempts to monopolize






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

trade or commerce...[and] to provide remedies, fines, and penalties for violations of this act.” Mich.

Act 274 of 1984.

282. Members of the Michigan Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within the

State of Michigan during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein, the price


trial.

283. Under the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, indirect purchasers have standing to

maintain an action based on the facts alleged in this Amended Complaint. Mich. Comp. Laws. §

452.778(2).

284. Defendants contracted, combined or conspired to restrain or monopolize trade or

commerce in the market for cedar shakes and shingles, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws §

445.772, et seq.

285. Members of the Michigan Class were injured with respect to purchases of cedar

shakes and shingles in Michigan and are entitled to all forms of relief, including actual damages,

treble damages for flagrant violations, interest, costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and injunctive or

other appropriate equitable relief.

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE MINNESOTA ANTITRUST LAW,

MINN. STAT. § 325D.49, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE MINNESOTA CLASS)



287. The Minnesota Antitrust Law of 1971 aims to prohibit any contract, combination

or conspiracy when any part thereof was created, formed, or entered into in Minnesota; any






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

contract, combination or conspiracy, wherever created, formed or entered into; any establishment,

maintenance or use of monopoly power; and any attempt to establish, maintain or use monopoly

power, whenever any of these affect Minnesota trade or commerce.

288. Members of the Minnesota Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within the

State of Minnesota during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein, the price


trial.

289. Under the Minnesota Antitrust Act of 1971, indirect purchasers have standing to

maintain an action based on the facts alleged in this Amended Complaint. Minn. Stat. § 325D.56.

290. Defendants contracted, combined or conspired in unreasonable restraint of trade or

commerce in the market for cedar shakes and shingles within the intrastate commerce of and

outside of Minnesota; established, maintained, used or attempted to establish, maintain or use

monopoly power over the trade or commerce in the market for cedar shakes and shingles within

the intrastate commerce of and outside of Minnesota; and fixed prices and allocated markets for

cedar shakes and shingles within the intrastate commerce of and outside of Minnesota, in violation

of Minn. Stat. § 325D.49, et seq.

291. Members of the Minnesota Class were injured with respect to purchases of cedar

shakes and shingles in Minnesota and are entitled to all forms of relief, including actual damages,

treble damages, costs and disbursements, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief

necessary to prevent and restrain violations hereof.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE MISSISSIPPI ANTITRUST STATUTE,

MISS. CODE ANN. § 74-21-1, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE MISSISSIPPI CLASS)



293. Title 75 of the Mississippi Code regulates trade, commerce and investments.

Chapter 21 thereof generally prohibits trusts and combines in restraint or hindrance of trade, with

the aim that “trusts and combines may be suppressed, and the benefits arising from competition in

business [are] preserved” to Mississippians. Miss. Code Ann. § 75-21-39.

294. Trusts are combinations, contracts, understandings or agreements, express or

implied, when inimical to the public welfare and with the effect of, inter alia, restraining trade,

increasing the price or output of a commodity, or hindering competition in the production or sale

of a commodity. Miss. Code Ann. § 75-21-1.

295. Members of the Mississippi Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within the

State of Mississippi during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein, the

price per pound of cedar shakes and shingles would have been lower, in an amount to be

determined at trial.

296. Under Mississippi law, indirect purchasers have standing to maintain an action

under the antitrust provisions of the Mississippi Code based on the facts alleged in this Amended

Complaint. Miss. Code Ann. § 75-21-9.

297. Defendants combined, contracted, understood and agreed in the market for cedar

shakes and shingles, in a manner inimical to public welfare, with the effect of restraining trade,






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

increasing the price of cedar shakes and shingles and hindering competition in the sale of cedar

shakes and shingles, in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 75-21-1(a), et seq.

298. Defendants monopolized or attempted to monopolize the production, control or sale

of cedar shakes and shingles, in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 75-21-3, et seq.

299. Defendants’ cedar shakes and shingles are sold indirectly via distributors

throughout the State of Mississippi. During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct

substantially affected Mississippi commerce.

300. Members of the Mississippi Class were injured with respect to purchases of cedar

shakes and shingles in Mississippi and are entitled to all forms of relief, including actual damages

and a penalty of $500 per instance of injury.

TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE MISSOURI MERCHANDISING PRACTICES ACT,

MO. ANN. STAT. § 407.010, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE MISSOURI CLASS)



302. Chapter 407 of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (the “MMPA”) generally

governs unlawful business practices, including antitrust violations such as restraints of trade and

monopolization.

303. Members of the Missouri Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within the

State of Missouri during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein, the price


trial.

304. Under Missouri law, indirect purchasers have standing to maintain an action under






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

the MMPA based on the facts alleged in this Amended Complaint. Gibbons v. J. Nuckolls, Inc.,

216 S.W.3d 667, 669 (Mo. 2007).


cedar shakes and shingles within the intrastate commerce of Missouri, and monopolized or

attempted to monopolize the market for cedar shakes and shingles within the intrastate commerce

of Missouri by possessing monopoly power in the market and willfully maintaining that power

through agreements to fix prices, allocate markets and otherwise control trade, in violation of Mo.

Ann. Stat. § 407.010, et seq.

306. Members of the Missouri Class were injured with respect to purchases of cedar

shakes and shingles in Missouri and are entitled to all forms of relief, including actual damages or

liquidated damages in an amount which bears a reasonable relation to the actual damages which

have been sustained, as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and injunctive relief.

THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE NEBRASKA JUNKIN ACT,

NEB. REV. STAT. § 59-801, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE NEBRASKA CLASS)



308. Chapter 59 of the Nebraska Revised Statute generally governs business and trade

practices. Sections 801 through 831 thereof, known as the Junkin Act, prohibit antitrust violations

such as restraints of trade and monopolization.

309. Members of the Nebraska Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within the

State of Nebraska during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein, the price






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


trial.

310. Under Nebraska law, indirect purchasers have standing to maintain an action under

the Junkin Act based on the facts alleged in this Amended Complaint. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-821.


cedar shakes and shingles within the intrastate commerce of Nebraska, and monopolized or

attempted to monopolize the market for cedar shakes and shingles within the intrastate commerce

of Nebraska by possessing monopoly power in the market and willfully maintaining that power

through agreements to fix prices, allocate markets and otherwise control trade, in violation of Neb.

Rev. Stat. § 59-801, et seq.

312. Members of the Nebraska Class were injured with respect to purchases of cedar

shakes and shingles in Nebraska and are entitled to all forms of relief, including actual damages

or liquidated damages in an amount which bears a reasonable relation to the actual damages which

have been sustained, as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and injunctive relief.

FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE NEVADA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT,

NEV. REV. STAT. § 598A.010, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE NEVADA CLASS)



314. The Nevada Unfair Trade Practice Act (“NUTPA”) states that “free, open and

competitive production and sale of commodities...is necessary to the economic well-being of the

citizens of the State of Nevada.” Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 598A.030(1).

315. The policy of NUTPA is to prohibit acts in restraint of trade or commerce, to






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

preserve and protect the free, open and competitive market, and to penalize all persons engaged in

anticompetitive practices. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 598A.030(2). Such acts include, inter alia, price

fixing, division of markets, allocation of customers, and monopolization of trade. Nev. Rev. Stat.

Ann. § 598A.060.

316. Members of the Nevada Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within the State

of Nevada during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein, the price per


317. Under Nevada law, indirect purchasers have standing to maintain an action under

NUTPA based on the facts alleged in this Amended Complaint. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann.

§598A.210(2).

318. Defendants fixed prices by agreeing to establish prices for cedar shakes and

shingles in Nevada, divided Nevada markets, allocated Nevada customers, and monopolized or

attempted monopolize trade or commerce of cedar shakes and shingles within the intrastate

commerce of Nevada, constituting a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade in

violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 598A, et seq.

319. Members of the Nevada Class were injured with respect to purchases of cedar

shakes and shingles in Nevada in that at least thousands of sales of Defendants’ cedar shakes and

shingles took place in Nevada, purchased by Nevada consumers at supra-competitive prices caused

by Defendants’ conduct.

320. Accordingly, members of the Nevada Class are entitled to all forms of relief,

including actual damages, treble damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and injunctive relief.

321. In accordance with the requirements of § 598A.210(3), notice of this action was






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

mailed to the Nevada Attorney General by Plaintiffs.

FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE’S ANTITRUST STATUTE,

N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. TIT. XXXI, § 356, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE CLASS)



323. Title XXXI of the New Hampshire Statutes generally governs trade and commerce.

Chapter 356 thereof governs combinations and monopolies and prohibits restraints of trade. N.H.

Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 356:2, 3.

324. Members of the New Hampshire Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within

the State of New Hampshire during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein,

the price per pound of cedar shakes and shingles would have been lower, in an amount to be


325. Under New Hampshire law, indirect purchasers have standing to maintain an action

based on the facts alleged in this Amended Complaint. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 356:11(II).

326. Defendants fixed, controlled or maintained prices for cedar shakes and shingles,

allocated customers or markets for cedar shakes and shingles, and established, maintained or used

monopoly power, or attempted to, constituting a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint

of trade in violation of N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 356:1, et seq.

327. Members of the New Hampshire Class were injured with respect to purchases of

cedar shakes and shingles in New Hampshire and are entitled to all forms of relief, including actual

damages sustained, treble damages for willful or flagrant violations, reasonable attorneys’ fees,

costs, and injunctive relief.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE NEW MEXICO ANTITRUST ACT,

N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 57-1-1, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE NEW MEXICO CLASS)



329. The New Mexico Antitrust Act aims to prohibit restraints of trade and monopolistic

practices. N.M. Stat. Ann. 57-1-15.

330. Members of the New Mexico Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within the

State of New Mexico during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein, the



331. Under New Mexico law, indirect purchasers have standing to maintain an action

based on the facts alleged in this Amended Complaint. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-1-3.

332. Defendants contracted, agreed, combined or conspired, and monopolized or

attempted to monopolize trade for cedar shakes and shingles within the intrastate commerce of

New Mexico, in violation of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-1-1, et seq.

333. Members of the New Mexico Class were injured with respect to purchases of cedar

shakes and shingles in New Mexico and are entitled to all forms of relief, including actual damages,

treble damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and injunctive relief.

SEVENTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF SECTION 340 OF THE NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW

(ON BEHALF OF THE NEW YORK CLASS)








1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

335. Article 22 of the New York General Business Law general prohibits monopolies

and contracts or agreements in restraint of trade, with the policy of encouraging competition or the

free exercise of any activity in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce in New York. N.Y.

Gen. Bus. Law § 340(1).

336. Members of the New York Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within the

State of New York during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein, the price


trial.

337. Under New York law, indirect purchasers have standing to maintain an action based

on the facts alleged in this Amended Complaint. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 340(6).

338. Defendants established or maintained a monopoly within the intrastate commerce

of New York for the trade or commerce of cedar shakes and shingles and restrained competition

in the free exercise of the conduct of the business of cedar shakes and shingles within the intrastate

commerce of New York, in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 340, et seq.

339. Members of the New York Class were injured with respect to purchases of cedar

shakes and shingles in New York and are entitled to all forms of relief, including actual damages,

treble damages, costs not exceeding $10,000, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

EIGHTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTES,

N.C. GEN. STAT. § 75-1, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE NORTH CAROLINA CLASS)








1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

341. Defendants entered into a contract or combination in the form of trust or otherwise,

or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in the cedar shakes and shingles market, a

substantial part of which occurred within North Carolina.


a monopoly, of trade or commerce in the cedar shakes and shingles market, for the purpose of

affecting competition or controlling, fixing, or maintaining prices, a substantial part of which

occurred within North Carolina.

343. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially affected North Carolina’s trade and

commerce.


North Carolina Class have been injured in their business or property and are threatened with further

injury.

345. By reason of the foregoing, members of the North Carolina Class are entitled to

seek all forms of relief available, including treble damages, under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1, et seq.

NINETEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE NORTH DAKOTA UNIFORM STATE ANTITRUST ACT,

N.D. CENT. CODE § 51-08.1, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE NORTH DAKOTA CLASS)



347. The North Dakota Uniform State Antitrust Act generally prohibits restraints on or

monopolization of trade. N.D. Cent. Code § 51-08.1, et seq.

348. Members of the North Dakota Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within

the State of North Dakota during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein,






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26



349. Under the North Dakota Uniform State Antitrust Act, indirect purchasers have

standing to maintain an action based on the facts alleged in this Amended Complaint. N.D. Cent.

Code § 51-08.1-08.

350. Defendants contracted, combined or conspired in restraint of, or to monopolize

trade or commerce in the market for cedar shakes and shingles, and established, maintained, or

used a monopoly, or attempted to do so, for the purposes of excluding competition or controlling,

fixing or maintaining prices for cedar shakes and shingles, in violation of N.D. Cent. Code §§ 51-

08.1-02, 03.

351. Members of the North Dakota Class were injured with respect to purchases in North

Dakota and are entitled to all forms of relief, including actual damages, treble damages for flagrant

violations, costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and injunctive or other equitable relief.

TWENTIETH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE OREGON ANTITRUST LAW,

OR. REV. STAT. § 646.705, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE OREGON CLASS)



353. Chapter 646 of the Oregon Revised Statutes generally governs business and trade

practices within Oregon. Sections 705 through 899 thereof govern antitrust violations, with the

policy to “encourage free and open competition in the interest of the general welfare and economy

of the state.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.715.

354. Members of the Oregon Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within the State






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

of Oregon during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein, the price per


355. Under Oregon law, indirect purchasers have standing under the antitrust provisions

of the Oregon Revised Statutes to maintain an action based on the facts alleged in this Amended

Complaint. Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.780(1)(a).

356. Defendants contracted, combined, or conspired in restraint of trade or commerce of

cedar shakes and shingles, and monopolized or attempted to monopolize the trade or commerce of

cedar shakes and shingles, in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.705, et seq.

357. Members of the Oregon Class were injured with respect to purchases of cedar

shakes and shingles within the intrastate commerce of Oregon, or alternatively to interstate

commerce involving actual or threatened injury to persons located in Oregon, and are entitled to

all forms of relief, including actual damages, treble damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert

witness fees and investigative costs, and injunctive relief.

TWENTY-FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE RHODE ISLAND ANTITRUST ACT,

R.I. GEN LAWS § 6-36-1, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE RHODE ISLAND CLASS)



359. The Rhode Island Antitrust Act aims to promote the unhampered growth of

commerce and industry throughout Rhode Island by prohibiting unreasonable restraints of trade

and monopolistic practices that hamper, prevent or decrease competition. R.I. Gen. Laws § 6¬36-

2(a)(2).

360. Members of the Rhode Island Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within the






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

State of Rhode Island during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein, the



361. Under the Rhode Island Antitrust Act, no later than January 1, 2011 (further

investigation and discovery may reveal an earlier date), indirect purchasers have standing to

maintain an action based on the facts alleged in this Amended Complaint. R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-36-

11(a). In Rhode Island, the claims of members of the Rhode Island Class alleged herein run no

later than January 1, 2011 (further investigation and discovery may reveal an earlier date) through

the date that the effects of Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct cease.

362. Defendants contracted, combined and conspired in restraint of trade of cedar shakes

and shingles within the intrastate commerce of Rhode Island, and established, maintained or used,

or attempted to establish, maintain or use, a monopoly in the trade of cedar shakes and shingles

for the purpose of excluding competition or controlling, fixing or maintaining prices within the

intrastate commerce of Rhode Island, in violation of R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-36-1, et seq.

363. Members of the Rhode Island Class were injured with respect to purchases of cedar

shakes and shingles in Rhode Island and are entitled to all forms of relief, including actual

damages, treble damages, reasonable costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief.

TWENTY-SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA ANTITRUST STATUTE,

S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 37-1-3.1, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA CLASS)



365. Chapter 37-1 of the South Dakota Codified Laws prohibits restraint of trade,






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

monopolies and discriminatory trade practices. S.D. Codified Laws §§ 37-1- 3.1, 3.2.

366. Members of the South Dakota Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within

the State of South Dakota during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein,



367. Under South Dakota law, indirect purchasers have standing under the antitrust

provisions of the South Dakota Codified Laws to maintain an action based on the facts alleged in

this Amended Complaint. S.D. Codified Laws § 37-1-33.


cedar shakes and shingles within the intrastate commerce of South Dakota, and monopolized or

attempted to monopolize trade or commerce of cedar shakes and shingles within the intrastate

commerce of South Dakota, in violation of S.D. Codified Laws § 37-1, et seq.

369. Members of the South Dakota Class were injured with respect to purchases of cedar

shakes and shingles in South Dakota and are entitled to all forms of relief, including actual

damages, treble damages, taxable costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and injunctive or other

equitable relief.

TWENTY-THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE TENNESSEE TRADE PRACTICES ACT,

TENN. CODE, § 47-25-101, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE TENNESSEE CLASS)



371. The Tennessee Trade Practices Act generally governs commerce and trade in

Tennessee, and it prohibits, inter alia, all arrangements, contracts, agreements, or combinations






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

between persons or corporations made with a view to lessen, or which tend to lessen, full and free

competition in goods in Tennessee. All such arrangements, contracts, agreements, or

combinations between persons or corporations designed, or which tend, to increase the prices of

any such goods, are against public policy, unlawful, and void. Tenn. Code, § 47-25-101.

372. Defendants competed unfairly and colluded by meeting to fix prices, divide

markets, and otherwise restrain trade as set forth herein, in violation of Tenn. Code, § 47-25-101,

et seq.

373. Defendant’s conduct violated the Tennessee Trade Practice Act because it was an

arrangement, contract, agreement, or combination to lessen full and free competition in goods in

Tennessee, and because it tended to increase the prices of goods in Tennessee. Specifically,

Defendants’ combination or conspiracy had the following effects: (1) price competition for cedar

shakes and shingles was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Tennessee; (2) prices

for cedar shakes and shingles were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at artificially high levels

throughout Tennessee; (3) members of the Tennessee Class were deprived of free and open

competition; and (4) members of the Tennessee Class paid supra-competitive, artificially inflated

prices for cedar shakes and shingles.

374. During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct had a substantial effect on

Tennessee commerce as cedar shakes and shingles were sold in Tennessee.

375. Members of the Tennessee Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within the

State of Tennessee during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein, the price


trial. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, members of the Tennessee






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Class have been injured in their business and property and are threatened with further injury.

376. Under Tennessee law, indirect purchasers (such as members of the Tennessee

Class) have standing under the Tennessee Trade Practice Acts to maintain an action based on the

facts alleged in this Amended Complaint.

377. Members of the Tennessee Class were injured with respect to purchases of cedar

shakes and shingles in Tennessee and are entitled to all forms of relief available under the law,

including return of the unlawful overcharges that they paid on their purchases, damages, equitable

relief, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

TWENTY-FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE UTAH ANTITRUST ACT,

UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 76-10-911, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE UTAH CLASS)



379. The Utah Antitrust Act aims to “encourage free and open competition in the interest

of the general welfare and economy of this state by prohibiting monopolistic and unfair trade

practices, combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade or commerce . . . .” Utah Code Ann.

§ 76-10-3102.

380. Members of the Utah Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within the State

of Utah during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein, the price per pound

of cedar shakes and shingles would have been lower, in an amount to be determined at trial.

381. Under the Utah Antitrust Act, indirect purchasers who are either Utah residents or

Utah citizens have standing to maintain an action based on the facts alleged in this Amended

Complaint. Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-3109(1)(a).






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


cedar shakes and shingles, and monopolized or attempted to monopolize trade or commerce of

cedar shakes and shingles, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-3101, et seq.

383. Members of the Classes who are either Utah residents or Utah citizens were injured

with respect to purchases of cedar shakes and shingles in Utah and are entitled to all forms of relief,

including actual damages, treble damages, costs of suit, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and injunctive

relief.

TWENTY-FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE WEST VIRGINIA ANTITRUST ACT,

W. VA. CODE §47-18-1, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE WEST VIRGINIA CLASS)



385. The violations of federal antitrust law set forth above also constitute violations of

section 47-18-1 of the West Virginia Code.

386. During the Class Period, Defendants and their Co-Conspirators engaged in a

continuing contract, combination or conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade and commerce

and other anticompetitive conduct alleged above in violation of W. Va. Code § 47-18-1, et seq.

387. Defendants’ anticompetitive acts described above were knowing, willful and

constitute violations or flagrant violations of the West Virginia Antitrust Act.

388. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, members of the

West Virginia Class have been injured in their business and property in that they paid more for

cedar shakes and shingles than they otherwise would have paid in the absence of Defendants’

unlawful conduct. As a result of Defendants’ violation of Section 47-18-3 of the West Virginia






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Antitrust Act, members of the West Virginia Class seek treble damages and their cost of suit,

including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to section 47-18-9 of the West Virginia Code.

TWENTY-SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE WISCONSIN ANTITRUST ACT,

WIS. STAT. ANN. § 133.01(1), ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE WISCONSIN CLASS)



390. Chapter 133 of the Wisconsin Statutes governs trust and monopolies, with the intent

“to safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and

encourage competition by prohibiting unfair and discriminatory business practices which destroy

or hamper competition.” Wis. Stat. § 133.01.

391. Members of the Wisconsin Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within the

State of Wisconsin during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein, the price


trial.

392. Under Wisconsin law, indirect purchasers have standing under the antitrust

provisions of the Wisconsin Statutes to maintain an action based on the facts alleged in this

Amended Complaint. Wis. Stat. 133.18(a).


cedar shakes and shingles, and monopolized or attempted to monopolize the trade or commerce of

cedar shakes and shingles, with the intention of injuring or destroying competition therein, in

violation of Wis. Stat. § 133.01, et seq.

394. Members of the Wisconsin Class were injured with respect to purchases of cedar






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

shakes and shingles in Wisconsin in that the actions alleged herein substantially affected the people

of Wisconsin, with at least thousands of consumers in Wisconsin paying substantially higher prices

for Defendants’ cedar shakes and shingles in Wisconsin.

395. Accordingly, members of the Wisconsin Class are entitled to all forms of relief,

including actual damages, treble damages, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and injunctive

relief.

396. Defendants’ and their Co-Conspirators’ anticompetitive activities have directly,

foreseeably and proximately caused injury to members of the Classes in the United States. Their

injuries consist of: (1) being denied the opportunity to purchase lower-priced cedar shakes and

shingles from Defendants, and (2) paying higher prices for Defendants’ cedar shakes and shingles

than they would have in the absence of Defendants’ conduct. These injuries are of the type of the

laws of the above States were designed to prevent, and flow from that which makes Defendants’

conduct unlawful.

397. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for all damages suffered by Plaintiffs

and members of the Classes.

XI. VIOLATIONS OF STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS


399. The following Twenty-Seventh through Fifty-Second for Relief are pleaded under

the consumer protection or similar laws of each State or jurisdiction identified below, on behalf of

the indicated class.

TWENTY-SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF ALASKA STATUTE §45.50.471, ET SEQ.

(ON BEHALF OF THE ALASKA CLASS)







1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


401. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, or

deceptive acts or practices in violation of Alaska Statute § 45.50.471, et seq.

402. Defendants knowingly agreed to, and did in fact, act in restraint of trade or

commerce by affecting, fixing, controlling, and/or maintaining at non-competitive and artificially

inflated levels, the prices at which cedar shakes and shingles were sold, distributed, or obtained in

Alaska and took efforts to conceal their agreements from members of the Alaska Class.

403. The aforementioned conduct on the part of Defendants constituted

“unconscionable” and “deceptive” acts or practices in violation of Alaska law.

404. Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) cedar shakes and

shingles price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Alaska; (2) cedar

shakes and shingles prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels

throughout Alaska; (3) members of the Alaska Class were deprived of free and open competition;

and (4) members of the Alaska Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for cedar

shakes and shingles.

405. During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected Alaska

commerce and consumers.


Alaska Class have been injured and are threatened with further injury.

407. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or

practices in violation of Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471, et seq., and, accordingly, members of the Alaska

Class seek all relief available under that statute.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

TWENTY-EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF COLORADO CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,

COLORADO REV. STAT. § 6-1-101, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE COLORADO CLASS)




deceptive acts or practices in violation of Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Colorado Rev. Stat.

§ 6-1-101, et seq.

410. Defendants engaged in an unfair and deceptive trade practices during the course of

their business dealings, which significantly impacted members of the Colorado Class as actual or

potential consumers of the Defendants’ goods and which caused members of the Colorado Class

to suffer injury.

411. Defendants took efforts to conceal their agreements from members of the Colorado

Class. Defendants’ unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) cedar shakes and shingles price

competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Colorado; (2) cedar shakes and

shingles prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout

Colorado; (3) members of the Colorado Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4)

members of the Colorado Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for cedar shakes

and shingles.

412. During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected

Colorado commerce and consumers.


Colorado Class have been injured and are threatened with further injury.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


practices in violation of Colorado Rev. Stat. § 6-1-101, et seq., and, accordingly, members of the

Colorado Class seek all relief available under that statute and as equity demands.

TWENTY-NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW

CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200, ET SEQ. (THE “UCL”) (ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CLASS)



416. The violations of federal antitrust law set forth above also constitute violations of

section 17200, et seq. of California Business and Professions Code.

417. Defendants have engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable,

deceptive or fraudulent acts or practices in violation of the UCL by engaging in the acts and

practices specified above.

418. This claim is instituted pursuant to sections 17203 and 17204 of California Business

and Professions Code, to obtain restitution from these Defendants for acts, as alleged herein, that

violated the UCL.

419. The Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein violated the UCL. The acts, omissions,

misrepresentations, practices and non-disclosures of Defendants, as alleged herein, constituted a

common, continuous, and continuing course of conduct of unfair competition by means of unfair,

unlawful, and/or fraudulent business acts or practices within the meaning of the UCL, including,

but not limited to, the violations of section 16720, et seq., of California Business and Professions

Code, set forth above.

420. Defendants’ acts, omissions, misrepresentations, practices, and non- disclosures, as



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 100



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

described above, whether or not in violation of section 16720, et seq., of California Business and

Professions Code, and whether or not concerted or independent acts, are otherwise unfair,

unconscionable, unlawful or fraudulent.

421. Members of the California Class are entitled to full restitution and/or disgorgement

of all revenues, earnings, profits, compensation, and benefits that may have been obtained by

Defendants as a result of such business acts or practices.

422. The illegal conduct alleged herein is continuing and there is no indication that

Defendants will not continue such activity into the future.

423. The unlawful and unfair business practices of Defendants, and each of them, as

described above, have caused and continue to cause members of the California Class to pay supra-

competitive and artificially-inflated prices for cedar shakes and shingles sold in the State of

California. Members of the California Class suffered injury in fact and lost money or property as

a result of such unfair competition.

424. As alleged in this Amended Complaint, Defendants and their Co-Conspirators have

been unjustly enriched as a result of their wrongful conduct and by Defendants’ unfair competition.

Members of the California Class are accordingly entitled to equitable relief including restitution

and/or disgorgement of all revenues, earnings, profits, compensation, and benefits that may have

been obtained by Defendants as a result of such business practices, pursuant to California Business

and Professions Code sections 17203 and 17204.

THIRTIETH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF DELAWARE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT,

6 DEL. CODE § 2511, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE DELAWARE CLASS)




COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 101



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26



deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, 6 Del. Code § 2511,

et seq.

427. Defendants agreed to, and did in fact, act in restraint of trade or commerce in

Delaware, by affecting, fixing, controlling, and/or maintaining, at artificial and non-competitive

levels, the prices at which cedar shakes and shingles were sold, distributed, or obtained in

Delaware.

428. Defendants deliberately failed to disclose material facts to members of the

Delaware Class concerning Defendants’ unlawful activities and artificially inflated prices for cedar


429. Defendants misrepresented to all purchasers during the Class Period that

Defendants’ cedar shakes and shingles prices were competitive and fair. Defendants’ unlawful

conduct had the following effects: (1) cedar shakes and shingles price competition was restrained,

suppressed, and eliminated throughout Delaware; (2) cedar shakes and shingles prices were raised,

fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout Delaware; (3) members of

the Delaware Class were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) members of the Delaware

Class paid supra-competitive, artificially inflated prices for cedar shakes and shingles.


Delaware commerce and consumers.

431. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of law, members of the

Delaware Class suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of Defendants’ use



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 102



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

or employment of unconscionable and deceptive commercial practices as set forth above. That loss

was caused by Defendants’ willful and deceptive conduct, as described herein.

432. Defendants’ deception, including their affirmative misrepresentations and

omissions concerning the price of cedar shakes and shingles, likely misled all purchasers acting

reasonably under the circumstances to believe that they were purchasing cedar shakes and shingles

at prices set by a free and fair market.

433. Defendants’ misleading conduct and unconscionable activities constitute violations

of 6 Del. Code § 2511, et seq., and, accordingly, members of the Delaware Class seek all relief

available under that statute.

THIRTY-FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CONSUMER PROTECTION

PROCEDURES ACT, D.C. CODE § 28-3901, ET SEQ.

(ON BEHALF OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CLASS)



435. Members of the District of Columbia Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles

for personal, family, or household purposes.

436. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have violated D.C. Code § 28-

3901, et seq.

437. Defendants are “merchants” within the meaning of D.C. Code § 28- 3901(a)(3).



market, a substantial part of which occurred within the District of Columbia.

439. Defendant established, maintained, or used a monopoly, or attempted to establish a



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 103



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

monopoly, of trade or commerce in the relevant markets, a substantial part of which occurred

within the District of Columbia, for the purpose of excluding competition or controlling, fixing, or

maintaining prices in the cedar shakes and shingles market.

440. Defendants’ conduct was an unfair method of competition, and an unfair or

deceptive act or practice within the conduct of commerce within the District of Columbia.

441. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially affected the District of Columbia’s

trade and commerce.


District of Columbia Class have been injured in their business or property and are threatened with

further injury.

443. By reason of the foregoing, members of the District of Columbia Class are entitled

to seek all forms of relief, including treble damages or $1500 per violation (whichever is greater)

plus punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under D.C. Code § 28-3901, et seq.

THIRTY-SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND

UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT, FLA. STAT. § 501.201(2), ET SEQ.

(ON BEHALF OF THE FLORIDA CLASS)



445. The Florida Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida Stat. §§ 501.201, et

seq. (the “FDUTPA”), generally prohibits “unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or

practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce,”

including practices in restraint of trade. Florida Stat. § 501.204(1).

446. The primary policy of the FDUTPA is “[t]o protect the consuming public and



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 104



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or

unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”

Florida Stat. § 501.202(2).

447. A claim for damages under the FDUTPA has three elements: (1) a prohibited

practice; (2) causation; and (3) actual damages.

448. Under Florida law, indirect purchasers have standing to maintain an action under

the FDUTPA based on the facts alleged in this Amended Complaint. Fla. Stat. § 501.211(a)

(“anyone aggrieved by a violation of this [statute] may bring an action . . .”).

449. Members of the Florida Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within the State

of Florida during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein, the price per


450. Defendants entered into a contract, combination or conspiracy between two or more

persons in restraint of, or to monopolize, trade or commerce in the cedar shakes and shingles

market, a substantial part of which occurred within Florida.

451. Defendants established, maintained or used a monopoly, or attempted to establish

a monopoly, of trade or commerce in the market for cedar shakes and shingles, for the purpose of

excluding competition or controlling, fixing or maintaining prices in Florida at a level higher than

the competitive market level, beginning at least as early as 2008 and continuing through the date

of this filing.

452. Accordingly, Defendants’ conduct was an unfair method of competition, and an

unfair or deceptive act or practice within the conduct of commerce within the State of Florida.

453. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially affected Florida’s trade and commerce.



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 105



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


Florida Class have been injured in their business or property by virtue of overcharges for cedar

shakes and shingles and are threatened with further injury.

455. By reason of the foregoing, members of the Florida Class are entitled to seek all

forms of relief, including injunctive relief pursuant to Florida Stat. §501.208 and declaratory

judgment, actual damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Florida Stat. § 501.211.

THIRTY-THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE HAWAII REVISED STATUTES ANNOTATED

§§ 480-1, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF HAWAII CLASS)




deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Hawaii Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 480-1, et seq.


shingles price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Hawaii; (2)

cedar shakes and shingles prices were, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels

throughout Hawaii; (3) members of the Hawaii Class were deprived of free and open competition;

and (4) members of the Hawaii Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated prices for cedar


459. During the Class Period, Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected Hawaii



Hawaii Class have been injured and are threatened with further injury.



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 106



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

THIRTY-FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD

AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT, 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 505/10A, ET SEQ.

(ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS CLASS)



462. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have violated 740 Ill. Comp.

Stat. Ann. 10/3(1), et seq.



market, a substantial part of which occurred within Illinois.



within Illinois, for the purpose of excluding competition or controlling, fixing, or maintaining

prices in the cedar shakes and shingles market.

465. Defendants’ conduct was unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive within the conduct

of commerce within the State of Illinois.

466. Defendants’ conduct misled consumers, withheld material facts, and resulted in

material misrepresentations to members of the Illinois Class.

467. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially affected Illinois’s trade and commerce.


Illinois Class were actually deceived and have been injured in their business or property and are

threatened with further injury.

469. By reason of the foregoing, members of the Illinois Class are entitled to seek all



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 107



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

forms of relief, including actual damages or any other relief the Court deems proper under 815 Ill.

Comp. Stat. Ann. 505/10a, et seq.

THIRTY-FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,

MASS. GEN. LAWS CH. 93A § 1, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CLASS)



471. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have violated the

Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93A § 2, et seq.

472. Members of the Massachusetts Class purchased cedar shakes and shingles within

the State of Massachusetts during the Class Period. But for Defendants’ conduct set forth herein,





market, a substantial part of which occurred within Massachusetts.


a monopoly, of trade or commerce in the market for cedar shakes and shingles, a substantial part

of which occurred within Massachusetts, for the purpose of excluding competition or controlling,

fixing, or maintaining prices in the cedar shakes and shingles market.

475. Defendants’ conduct was an unfair method of competition, and an unfair or

deceptive act or practice within the conduct of commerce within the State of Massachusetts

476. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially affected Massachusetts’ trade and



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 108



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

commerce.


Massachusetts Class have been injured in their business or property and are threatened with further

injury.

478. By reason of the foregoing, members of the Massachusetts Class are entitled to seek

all forms of relief, including up to treble damages and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under

Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93A § 9.

THIRTY-SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,

MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 445.901, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE MICHIGAN CLASS)



480. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have violated Mich. Comp.

Laws Ann. § 445.901, et seq.

481. Defendants have entered into a contract, combination, or conspiracy between two

or more persons in restraint of, or to monopolize, trade or commerce in the cedar shakes and

shingles market, a substantial part of which occurred within Michigan.



excluding or limiting competition or controlling or maintaining prices, a substantial part of which

occurred within Michigan.

483. Defendants’ conduct was conducted with the intent to deceive Michigan consumers

regarding the nature of Defendants’ actions within the stream of Michigan commerce.



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 109



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


of commerce within the State of Michigan.

485. Defendants’ conduct misled consumers, withheld material facts, and took

advantage of Plaintiffs and members-of-the-Classes’ inability to protect themselves.

486. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially affected Michigan’s trade and

commerce.


Michigan Class have been injured in their business or property and are threatened with further

injury.

488. By reason of the foregoing, members of the Michigan Class are entitled to seek all

forms of relief available under Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.911.

THIRTY-SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE MINNESOTA CONSUMER FRAUD ACT,

MINN. STAT. § 325F.68, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE MINNESOTA CLASS)



490. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have violated Minn. Stat. §

325F.68, et seq.

491. Defendants engaged in a deceptive trade practice with the intent to injure

competitors and consumers through supra-competitive profits.


a monopoly, of trade or commerce in the cedar shakes and shingles market, a substantial part of

which occurred within Minnesota, for the purpose of controlling, fixing, or maintaining prices in



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 110



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

the cedar shakes and shingles market.


of commerce within the State of Minnesota.

494. Defendants’ conduct, specifically in the form of fraudulent concealment of their

horizontal agreement, created a fraudulent or deceptive act or practice committed by a supplier in

connection with a consumer transaction.

495. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially affected Minnesota’s trade and

commerce.

496. Defendants’ conduct was willful.


Minnesota Class have been injured in their business or property and are threatened with further

injury.

498. By reason of the foregoing, members of the Minnesota Class are entitled to seek all

forms of relief, including damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under Minn. Stat. §

325F.68, et seq. and applicable case law.

THIRTY-EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE MONTANA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT OF 1970, MONT. CODE, §§ 30-14-103, ET SEQ., AND §§ 30-14-201, ET. SEQ.

(ON BEHALF OF THE MONTANA CLASS)




deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Montana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer

Protection Act of 1970, Mont. Code, §§ 30-14-103, et seq., and §§ 30-14-201, et. seq.



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 111



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


shingles price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Montana; (2)

cedar shakes and shingles prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high

levels throughout Montana; (3) members of the Montana Class were deprived of free and open

competition; and (4) members of the Montana Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated


502. During the Class Period, defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected Montana


503. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ unlawful conduct, members of the

Montana Class have been injured and are threatened with further injury. Defendants have engaged

in unfair competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Mont. Code, §§ 30-14-

103, et seq., and §§ 30-14-201, et seq., and, accordingly, members of the Montana Class seek all

relief available under that statute.

THIRTY-NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE NEBRASKA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,

NEB. REV. STAT. § 59-1602, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE NEBRASKA CLASS)



505. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have violated Neb. Rev. Stat.

§ 59-1602, et seq.



shingles market, a substantial part of which occurred within Nebraska.



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 112



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26




occurred within Nebraska.

508. Defendants’ conduct was conducted with the intent to deceive Nebraska consumers

regarding the nature of Defendants’ actions within the stream of Nebraska commerce.


of commerce within the State of Nebraska.

510. Defendants’ conduct misled consumers, withheld material facts, and had a direct or

indirect impact upon members-of-the-Nebraska-Class’ ability to protect themselves.

511. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially affected Nebraska’s trade and

commerce.


Nebraska Class have been injured in their business or property and are threatened with further

injury.

513. By reason of the foregoing, members of the Nebraska Class are entitled to seek all

forms of relief available under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59- 1614.

FORTIETH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE NEVADA DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT,

NEV. REV. STAT. § 598.0903, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE NEVADA CLASS)



515. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have violated Nev. Rev. Stat.



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 113



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

§ 598.0903, et seq.


competitors and to substantially lessen competition.



which occurred within Nevada, for the purpose of excluding competition or controlling, fixing, or



of commerce within the State of Nevada.

519. Defendants’ conduct amounted to a fraudulent act or practice committed by a

supplier in connection with a consumer transaction.

520. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially affected Nevada’s trade and

commerce.



Nevada Class have been injured in their business or property and are threatened with further injury.

523. By reason of the foregoing, the Nevada Class is entitled to seek all forms of relief,

including damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per

violation under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0993.

FORTY-FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,

N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. TIT. XXXI, § 358-A, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE CLASS)




COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 114



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


525. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have violated N.H. Rev. Stat.

Ann. tit. XXXI, § 358-A, et seq.



shingles market, a substantial part of which occurred within New Hampshire.




occurred within New Hampshire.

528. Defendants’ conduct was conducted with the intent to deceive New Hampshire

consumers regarding the nature of Defendants’ actions within the stream of New Hampshire

commerce.

529. Defendants’ conduct was unfair or deceptive within the conduct of commerce

within the State of New Hampshire.

530. Defendants’ conduct was willful and knowing.


indirect impact upon members-of-the-New-Hampshire-Class’ ability to protect themselves.

532. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially affected New Hampshire’s trade and

commerce.


New Hampshire Class have been injured in their business or property and are threatened with



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 115



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

further injury.

534. By reason of the foregoing, members of the New Hampshire Class are entitled to

seek all forms of relief available under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. XXXI, §§ 358-A:10 and 358-

A:10-a.

FORTY-SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE NEW MEXICO UNFAIR PRACTICES ACT,

N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 57-12-3, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE NEW MEXICO CLASS)



536. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have violated N.M. Stat. Ann.

§§ 57-12-3, et seq.



market, a substantial part of which occurred within New Mexico.



within New Mexico, for the purpose of excluding competition or controlling, fixing, or



of commerce within the State of New Mexico.


material misrepresentations to members of the New Mexico Class.

541. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially affected New Mexico’s trade and



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 116



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

commerce.

542. Defendants’ conduct constituted “unconscionable trade practices” in that such

conduct, inter alia, resulted in a gross disparity between the value received by the New Mexico

class members and the price paid by them for cedar shakes and shingles as set forth in N.M. Stat.

Ann. § 57-12-2E.



New Mexico Class have been injured in their business or property and are threatened with further

injury.

545. By reason of the foregoing, members of the New Mexico Class are entitled to seek

all forms of relief, including actual damages or up to $300 per violation, whichever is greater, plus

reasonable attorney’s fees under N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 57-12-10.

FORTY-THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA UNFAIR TRADE AND BUSINESS

PRACTICES ACT, N.C. GEN. STAT. § 75-1.1, ET SEQ.

(ON BEHALF OF THE NORTH CAROLINA CLASS)



547. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have violated N.C. Gen. Stat.

§ 75-1.1, et seq.

548. Defendants entered into a contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of, or to

monopolize, trade or commerce in the cedar shakes and shingles market, a substantial part of which

occurred within North Carolina.




COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 117



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

of commerce within the State of North Carolina.

550. Defendants’ trade practices are and have been immoral, unethical, unscrupulous,

and substantially injurious to consumers.


material misrepresentations to members of the North Carolina Class.

552. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially affected North Carolina’s trade and

commerce.

553. Defendants’ conduct constitutes consumer-oriented deceptive acts or practices

within the meaning of North Carolina law, which resulted in consumer injury and broad adverse

impact on the public at large, and harmed the public interest of North Carolina consumers in an

honest marketplace in which economic activity is conducted in a competitive manner.


North Carolina Class have been injured in their business or property and are threatened with further

injury.

555. By reason of the foregoing, members of the North Carolina Class are entitled to

seek all forms of relief, including treble damages under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16.

FORTY-FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE NORTH DAKOTA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES LAW,

N.D. CENT. CODE § 51-10, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE NORTH DAKOTA CLASS)



557. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have violated N.D. Cent. Code

§ 51-10-01, et seq.



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 118



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26





which occurred within North Dakota, for the purpose of controlling, fixing, or maintaining prices

in the cedar shakes and shingles market.


of commerce within the State of North Dakota.

561. Defendants’ conduct amounted to a fraudulent or deceptive act or practice

committed by a supplier in connection with a consumer transaction.

562. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially affected North Dakota’s trade and

commerce.



North Dakota Class have been injured in their business or property and are threatened with further

injury.

565. By reason of the foregoing, members of the North Dakota Class are entitled to seek

all forms of relief, including damages and injunctive relief under N.D. Cent. Code § 51-10-06.

FORTY-FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE OREGON UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES ACT,

OR. REV. STAT. § 646.605, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE OREGON CLASS)





COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 119



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

567. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have violated Or. Rev. Stat. §

646.608, et seq.



shingles market, a substantial part of which occurred within Oregon.




occurred within Oregon.

570. Defendants’ conduct was conducted with the intent to deceive Oregon consumers

regarding the nature of Defendants’ actions within the stream of Oregon commerce.


within the State of Oregon.


indirect impact upon and members-of-the-Oregon-Class’ ability to protect themselves.

573. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially affected Oregon’s trade and commerce.


Oregon Class have been injured in their business or property and are threatened with further injury.

575. By reason of the foregoing, members of the Oregon Class are entitled to seek all

forms of relief available under Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.638.

576. Pursuant to section 646.638 of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, with the

filing of this action, a copy of this Amended Complaint is being served upon the Attorney General



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 120



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

of Oregon.

FORTY-SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE RHODE ISLAND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT,

R.I. GEN. LAWS § 6-13.1-1, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE RHODE ISLAND CLASS)



578. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have violated R.I. Gen Laws

§ 6-13.1-1, et seq.

579. Defendants engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice with the intent to injure




which occurred within Rhode Island, for the purpose of controlling, fixing, or maintaining prices



within the State of Rhode Island.

582. Defendants’ conduct amounted to an unfair or deceptive act or practice committed

by a supplier in connection with a consumer transaction.

583. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially affected Rhode Island’s trade and

commerce.


585. Defendants deliberately failed to disclose material facts to members of the Rhode

Island Class concerning Defendants’ unlawful activities, including the horizontal conspiracy and



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 121



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

artificially-inflated prices for cedar shakes and shingles.

586. Defendants’ deception, including its affirmative misrepresentations and/or

omissions concerning the price of cedar shakes and shingles, constitutes information necessary to

members of the Rhode Island Class relating to the cost of cedar shakes and shingles purchased.

587. Members of the Rhode Island class purchased goods, namely cedar shakes and

shingles, primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.


Rhode Island Class have been injured in their business or property and are threatened with further

injury.

589. By reason of the foregoing, members of the Rhode Island Class are entitled to seek

all forms of relief, including actual damages or $200 per violation, whichever is greater, and

injunctive relief and punitive damages under R.I. Gen Laws § 6-13.1-5.2.

FORTY-SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA’S UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT,

S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 39-5-10, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CLASS)



591. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have violated S.C. Code Ann.

§§ 39-5-10.



shingles market, a substantial part of which occurred within Oregon.




COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 122



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26



occurred within South Carolina.

594. Defendants’ conduct was conducted with the intent to deceive South Carolina

consumers regarding the nature of Defendants’ actions within the stream of South Carolina

commerce.


within the State of South Carolina.


indirect impact upon members-of-the-South-Carolina-Class’ ability to protect themselves.

597. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially affected South Carolina trade and

commerce.

598. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially harmed the public interest of the State

of South Carolina, as numerous citizens purchase cedar shakes and shingles for their homes and

businesses.

FORTY-EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND

CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW, S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 37-24, ET SEQ.

(ON BEHALF OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA CLASS)



600. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have violated S.D. Codified

Laws § 37-24-6.




COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 123



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26




which occurred within South Dakota, for the purpose of controlling, fixing, or maintaining prices



of commerce within the State of South Dakota.

604. Defendants’ conduct amounted to a fraudulent or deceptive act or practice

committed by a supplier in connection with a consumer transaction.

605. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially affected South Dakota’s trade and

commerce.



South Dakota Class have been injured in their business or property and are threatened with further

injury.

608. By reason of the foregoing, members of the South Dakota Class are entitled to seek

all forms of relief, including actual damages and injunctive relief under S.D. Codified Laws § 37-

24-31.

FORTY-NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE UTAH CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES ACT,

UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 13-11-1, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE UTAH CLASS)





COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 124



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

610. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have violated Utah Code Ann.

§§ 13-11-1, et seq.



market, a substantial part of which occurred within Utah.

612. Defendants are suppliers within the meaning of Utah Code Ann. §§ 13-11-3.



within Utah, for the purpose of excluding competition or controlling, fixing, or maintaining prices



of commerce within the State of Utah.

615. Defendants’ conduct and/or practices were unconscionable and were undertaken in

connection with consumer transactions.

616. Defendants knew or had reason to know that their conduct was unconscionable.


material misrepresentations to members of the Utah Class.

618. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially affected Utah’s trade and commerce.


Utah Class have been injured in their business or property and are threatened with further injury.

620. By reason of the foregoing, members of the Utah Class are entitled to seek all forms

of relief, including declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and ancillary relief, pursuant to Utah



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 125



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Code Ann. §§ 13-11-19(5) and 13-11-20.

FIFTIETH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE UTAH UNFAIR PRACTICES ACT,

UTAH CODE ALL. §§ 13-5-1, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE UTAH CLASS)



622. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants have violated Utah Code Ann.

§§ 13-5-1, et seq.



market, a substantial part of which occurred within Utah.



within Utah, for the purpose of excluding competition or controlling, fixing, or maintaining prices


625. Defendants’ conduct caused or was intended to cause unfair methods of

competition within the State of Utah.

626. Defendants’ unlawful conduct substantially affected Utah’s trade and commerce.


Utah Class have been injured in their business or property and are threatened with further injury.

628. By reason of the foregoing, members of the Utah Class are entitled to seek all forms

of relief, including actual damages or $2000 per Utah Class member, whichever is greater, plus

reasonable attorney’s fees under Utah Code Ann. §§ 13-5-14, et seq.



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 126



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

FIFTY-FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF VERMONT STAT. ANN. 9 § 2453, ET SEQ.

(ON BEHALF OF THE VERMONT CLASS)



630. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in

violation of Vermont Stat. Ann. 9 § 2453, et seq.

631. Defendants’ combination or conspiracy had the following effects: (1) cedar shakes

and shingles price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Vermont;

(2) cedar shakes and shingles prices were raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized at artificially

high levels throughout Vermont; (3) members of the Vermont Class were deprived of free and

open competition; and (4) members of the Vermont Class paid supracompetitive, artificially

inflated prices for cedar shakes and shingles.


Vermont commerce.


Vermont Class have been injured in their business and property and are threatened with further

injury.

634. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have entered into an agreement in restraint

of trade in violation of Vermont Stat. Ann. 9 § 2453, et seq. Accordingly, members of the Vermont

Class seek all relief available under Vermont Stat. Ann. 9 § 2453, et seq.



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 127



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

FIFTY-SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF VIRGINIA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 1977,

VA. CODE § 59.1-196, ET SEQ.(ON BEHALF OF THE VIRGINIA CLASS)



636. Defendants have entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade in

violation of Virginia Consumer Protection Act of 1977, Va. Code § 59.1-196, et seq.


deceptive acts or practices in violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act of 1977, Va. Code

§ 59.1-196, et seq.

638. Members of the Virginia Class purchased and/or reimbursed for cedar shakes and

shingles to be used for personal, family, or household purposes.

639. Defendants agreed to, and did in fact, act in restraint of trade or commerce in a

market that includes Virginia, by affecting, fixing, controlling, and/or maintaining, at artificial and

non-competitive levels, the prices at which cedar shakes and shingles were sold, distributed, or

obtained in Virginia.

640. Defendants deliberately failed to disclose material facts to members of the Virginia

Class concerning Defendants’ unlawful activities and artificially inflated prices for cedar shakes

and shingles. Defendants misrepresented to all purchasers during the Class Period that Defendants’

cedar shakes and shingles prices were competitive and fair.


shingles price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout Virginia; (2)

cedar shakes and shingles prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 128



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

levels throughout Virginia; (3) members of the Virginia Class were deprived of free and open

competition; and (4) members of the Virginia Class paid supracompetitive, artificially inflated


642. Defendants’ illegal conduct substantially affected Virginia commerce and

consumers.

643. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of law, members of the

Virginia Class suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of Defendants’ use

or employment of unconscionable and deceptive commercial practices as set forth above.

644. That loss was caused by Defendants’ willful and deceptive conduct, as described

herein. Defendants’ deception, including their affirmative misrepresentations and omissions

concerning the price of cedar shakes and shingles, likely misled all purchasers acting reasonably

under the circumstances to believe that they were purchasing cedar shakes and shingles at prices

set by a free and fair market.

645. Defendants’ affirmative misrepresentations and omissions constitute information

important to members of the Virginia Class as they related to the cost of cedar shakes and shingles

they purchased.


practices in violation of Va. Code § 59.1-196, et seq., and, accordingly, members of the Virginia

Class seek all relief available under that statute.

FIFTY-THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNJUST ENRICHMENT


648. As a result of their unlawful conduct described above, Defendants have and will

continued to be unjustly enriched by the receipt of unlawfully inflated prices and unlawful profits



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 129



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

of cedar shakes and shingles.

649. Under common law principles of unjust enrichment, Defendants should not be

permitted to retain the benefits conferred on them by overpayments by Plaintiffs and members of

the Classes in the following states: Arizona, California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida,

Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,

Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon,

Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

650. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Classes of all others so

similarly situated, respectfully requests judgment against Defendants as follows:

651. The Court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action under Rule

23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, appoint Plaintiffs as Class

Representatives and their counsel of record as Class Counsel, and direct that notice of this action,

as provided by Rule 23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, be given to the Classes, once

certified;

652. The unlawful conduct, conspiracy or combination alleged herein be adjudged and

decreed in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and listed state antitrust laws, unfair

competition laws, state consumer protection laws, and common law;

653. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes recover damages, to the maximum extent

allowed under the applicable state laws, and that a joint and several judgment in favor of Plaintiffs

and the members of the Classes be entered against Defendants in an amount to be trebled to the

extent such laws permit;

654. Defendants, their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees and other officers,



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 130



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

directors, partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act

on their behalf or in concert with them, be permanently enjoined and restrained from in any manner

continuing, maintaining or renewing the conduct, conspiracy, or combination alleged herein, or

from entering into any other conspiracy or combination having a similar purpose or effect, and

from adopting or following any practice, plan, program, or device having a similar purpose or

effect;

655. Defendants, their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees and other officers,

directors, partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act

on their behalf or in concert with them, be permanently enjoined and restrained from in any manner

continuing, maintaining, or renewing the sharing of highly sensitive competitive information that

permits individual identification of company’s information;

656. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes be awarded pre- and post- judgment

interest as provided by law, and that such interest be awarded at the highest legal rate from and

after the date of service of this Amended Complaint;

657. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes recover their costs of suit, including

reasonable attorneys’ fees, as provided by law; and

658. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes have such other and further relief as the

case may require and the Court may deem just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury, pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

of all issues so triable.



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 131



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DATED this 28th day of June, 2019.

KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.

By: s/Mark A. Griffin By: s/Raymond J. Farrow s/ Karin B. Swope

Mark A. Griffin, WSBA #16296 Raymond J. Farrow, WSBA #31782 Karin B. Swope, WSBA #24015 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. W. Joseph Bruckner (admitted Pro Hac Vice) Elizabeth R. Odette (admitted Pro Hac Vice) Brian D. Clark (admitted Pro Hac Vice) Arielle S. Wagner (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC Nathan D. Prosser (admitted Pro Hac Vice) Anne T. Regan (admitted Pro Hac Vice) Michael P. Srodoski (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 8050 West 78th Street Minneapolis, MN 55439 Phone: (952) 941-4005 Fax: (952) 941-2337 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 132



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP Fred T. Isquith (admitted Pro Hac Vice) Thomas H. Burt (admitted Pro Hac Vice) Veronica M. Bosco (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212-545-4600 Fax: 212-686-0114 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



COMPLAINT (2:19−cv−00288−MJP ) - 133



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 28th day of June, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing

to all counsel of record.

s/ Mark A. GriffinMark A. Griffin, WSBA #16296

4832-3727-1707, v. 1


2:19−cv−00288−mjp · first amended and consolidated class action complaint...

Documents