c. Violation of Antitrust Law Price-fixing is illegal per se under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U.S. 131, 135, 89 S.Ct. 927, 22 L.Ed.2d 148 (1969). Whether Defendants agreed to fix the price of potash between April 1987 and July 8, 1994, clearly involves questions common to the entire class. This element relates solely to Defendants’ conduct, and as such proof for these issues will not vary among class members. See In re Catfish Antitrust Litig., 826 F.Supp. at 1039 (“[e]vidence of a national conspiracy to fix the price of catfish and processed catfish would revolve around what the defendants did, and said, if anything, in pursuit of a price fixing scheme”); Transamerican Refining Corp. v. Dravo Corp., 130 F.R.D. 70, 75 (S.D.Tex.1990) (<HOLDING>). Defendants do not dispute this component of
holding proof that each class member paid a premium for vitaminwater over another beverage would not be susceptible to generalized proof because plaintiffs did not propose a suitable methodology for establishing classwide damages holding the fedrevid 801d2e requires proof of the conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence and allows consideration of the offered declaration as part of the proof of the conspiracy holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding that proof of conspiracy is susceptible to generalized proof since focus is on what defendants did and said holding that proof of an overt act is not required in a  846 conspiracy