The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted in part and denied in part Brave Optical’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s earlier dismissal of its claims against Luxottica. Brave Optical Inc. v. Luxottica of Am. Inc., 2026 WL 376931 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2026). Although the court found that Brave Optical had not shown clear error in the court’s prior legal analysis, it exercised its discretion to allow Brave Optical the opportunity to seek leave to amend its antitrust and fraud claims.
Brave Optical had alleged that Luxottica’s Master Agreements with Vision Service Plan (VSP) constituted an unlawful price-fixing scheme, but the court dismissed the claims as time barred. In seeking reconsideration, Brave Optical argued that the court erred in rejecting its continuing-violation theory and further contended that the court improperly inferred that the Luxottica‑VSP Master Agreement was incorporated into its franchise documents, when Brave Optical had actually alleged that Luxottica concealed the agreement. Brave Optical also sought leave to amend based on newly discovered evidence of more recent Luxottica‑VSP Master Agreements and asserted that the court improperly drew inferences against it in dismissing its fraud claims.
On reconsideration, the court held that Brave Optical might be able to plead facts establishing a continuing violation and therefore amended its prior ruling to dismiss the antitrust claims without prejudice. The court emphasized that to proceed on an antitrust claim, Brave Optical had to point to some overt act Luxottica took during the relevant time period, and not merely to below-rate reimbursements from VSP after the 2014 Master Agreement was executed. The court explained that such an overt act could include a new reimbursement agreement between Brave Optical and VSP executed within the limitations period if that agreement was entered into at Luxottica’s behest or with its approval, which could be sufficient to restart the statute of limitations. The court also noted that “follow-on agreements” between Luxottica and VSP could support such a new overt act, provided those agreements were executed while Brave Optical was still a franchisee. The court permitted Brave Optical to amend its fraud claims because Brave Optical asserted it could add allegations showing it learned of the alleged fraud later than the court previously inferred.
[View source.]
