Applied Antitrust Law

Dale Collins
NYU School of Law
Georgetown University Law Center

NB: "±" indicates that the hyperlink will take you to another site.

 

Home page
Topical index
Case studies index

3. Criminal prosecution

 

5. Antitrust class actions

 

 

4. The Private Cause of Action

 

Reading and class notes
Significant precedents
Subject matter jurisdiction
The Indianapolis Ready-Mix Concrete follow-on actions
Reference materials
Case studies

 
Primary Materials
Supplemental Materials

Reading and Class Notes

Reading and class notes

Unit 4 reading

Unit 4 class notes

 

Significant Precedents

Role of private enforcement
 

Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U.S. 251 (1972) (finding that the private cause of action provisions in the antitrust laws were designed to encourage private enforcement both to provide compensation to those injured by antitrust violations and to create "private attorneys general" whose presence will deter future antitrust violations) (± Oyez)

Co-violator liability

City of Atlanta v. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipeworks, 127 F. 23 (6th Cir. 1902), aff'd, 203 U.S. 390 (1906) (joint and several liability)

District court

Declaration, City of Atlanta v. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Co., No. 647 (C.C.E.D. Tenn. Apr. 2, 1900)

City of Atlanta v. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Co., 101 F. 900 (C.C.E.D. Tenn. May 5, 1900) (Nos. 647, 599)

Sixth Circuit

rev'd, Atlanta v. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipeworks, 127 F. 23 (6th Cir. 1902) (No. 1178)

On remand

Judgment, City of Atlanta v. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Co., No. 647 (C.C.E.D. Tenn. Oct. 14, 1904)

Supreme Court

aff'd, Atlanta v. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipeworks, 203 U.S. 390 (1906)

-------------------------------------------

Declaration, Manion & Co. v. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works, No. 599 (C.C.E.D. Tenn. filed Oct. 18, 1898)

Mandate, Martin Manion & Co. v. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works, No. 599 (6th Cir. Aug. 17, 1909)

-------------------------------------------

Indictment, United States v. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works.,Cr. No. 2598 (C.C.E.D. Tenn. returned _____)

Judgment, United States v. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works.,Cr. No. 2598 (C.C.E.D. Tenn. July 26, 1900) (on a guilty plea)

 

 

Texas Indus., Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630 (1981) (± Oyez) (no right of contribution)

 
 

 

± Flintkote Co. v. Lysfjord, 246 F.2d 368 (9th Cir. 1957) (recognizing rule that partial settlement amounts are offset against post-trebled damages, not actual damages)

Antitrust injury
 

Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477 (1977) (defining antitrust injury and establishing requirement in Clayton Act § 4 actions for treble damages) (± Oyez), vacating and remanding 523 F.2d 262 (3d Cir. 1975)

Blue Shield of Va. v. McCready, 457 U.S. 465 (1982) (antitrust injury to consumers) (± Oyez)

Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U.S. 104 (1986) (requiring actual or threatened antitrust injury in Clayton Act § 16 actions for injunctive relief) (± Oyez)

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328 (1990) (finding no antitrust injury due to lost sales allegedly due to vertically-fixed low but not predatory prices of its competitors in a then per se-illegal vertical maximum resale price maintenance scheme) (± Oyez)

Passing-on defense
 

Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 392 U.S. 481 (1968) (± Oyez)

Indirect purchasers
 

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) (holding that indirect purchasers, with some limited exceptions, lack prudential standing to recover damages from overcharges) (± Oyez)

See Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 392 U.S. 481 (1968) (± Oyez)

± Andrew I. Gavil, Antitrust Remedy Wars Episode I: Illinois Brick from Inside the Supreme Court, 79 St. John's L. Rev. 553 (2005)

± Richard A. Posner & William M. Landes, Should Indirect Purchasers Have Standing to Sue under the Antitrust Laws? An Economic Analysis of the Rule of Illinois Brick, 46 U. Chi. L. Rev. 602 (1979).

California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989) (holding that federal indirect purchaser doctrine does not preempt state laws) (± Oyez)

"Proper parties" requirement
 

Associated Gen. Contractors v. Calif. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (1983) (± Oyez)

"Trade or commerce"
 

McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans, Inc., 444 U.S. 232 (1980) (± Oyez)

Summit Health, Ltd. v. Pinhas, 500 U.S. 322 (1991) (± Oyez)

See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U.S. 186 (1974) (comparing Clayton Act requirements) (± Oyez)

See generally United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (on reach of Commerce Clause) (± Oyez)

Statute of limitations
 

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (1971) (± Oyez)

Treble damage actions

± Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 (1979) (± Oyez), rev'g 579 F.2d 1077 (8th Cir. 1978) (recognizing an individual consumer who purchased a price-fixed hearing for personal use as a "person" injured in her "business or property" within the meaning of Clayton Act § 4)

Case history

Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 435 F. Supp. 933 ( D. Minn. 1977)

rev'd, 579 F.2d 1077 (8th Cir. 1978)

rev'd, 442 U.S. 330 (1979)

on remand, Sonotone Corp. v. Reiter, 602 F.2d 179 (8th Cir. 1979) (summarily vacating prior decision and remanding to the district court for further proceedings)

on remand, Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 486 F. Supp. 115 (D. Minn. 1980) (denying defendants' motion for summary judgment)

 
 

Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. City of Atlanta, 203 U.S. 390 (1906) (recognizing municipal corporation as a "person")

Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U.S. 251 (1972) (state may not sue for injury to its general economy) (± Oyez)

Pfizer, Inc. v. India, 434 U.S. 308 (1978) (recognizing foreign government as "person") (± Oyez)

In pari delecto
 

Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp., 392 U.S. 134 (1968) (± Oyez)

Subject Matter Jurisdiction and the Reach of the Sherman Act

Subject matter jurisdiction and the reach of the antitrust laws

Antitrust cases

 

 —Antitrust cases

United States v. E.C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 (1895)

See Unit 2 for case materials

 

United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 U.S. 290 (1897)

See Unit 2 for case materials

 

United States v. Joint Traffic Ass'n, 171 U.S. 505 (1898)

See Unit 2 for case materials

 

Hopkins v. United States, 171 U.S. 578 (1898)

 

 

Anderson v. United States, 171 U.S. 604 (1898)

 

 

Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 211 (1899).

See Unit 2 for case materials

 

Montague & Co. v. Lowry, 193 U.S. 38 (1904)

 

 

Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905)

District court

Petition, Swift & Co. v. United States, Eq. 26291 (C.C.N.D. Ill. May 10, 1902) (Blue Book No. 20) (printed version from transcript of record)

Docket sheet

Swift & Co. v. United States, 122 F. 529 (C.C.N.D. Ill. Apr.18, 1902)

Preliminary Injunction (May 20, 1902)

Decree, Swift & Co. v. United States, Eq. 26291 (C.C.N.D. Ill. May 20, 1902) (entering permanent injunction after defendants failed to answer)

Swift & Co. v. United States, Eq. 26291 (C.C.N.D. Ill. Apr. 18, 1903) (reported as 122 F. 529)

Supreme Court

Transcript of Record (Index)

aff’d as mod. Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (Jan. 30, 1905)

On remand

Decree, Swift & Co. v. United States, Eq. 26291 (C.C.N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 1905)

 

United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n, 322 U.S. 533 (1944)

 

 

Mandeville Island Farms Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U.S 219 (1948)

District court

Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 64 F. Supp. 265 (S.D. Cal. Jan 09, 1946)

Ninth Circuit

aff'd, Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 159 F.2d 71 (9th Cir. Jan 14, 1947)

Supreme Court

rev'd, Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U.S. 219 (May 10, 1948)

 

United States v. Women's Sportswear Mfrs. Ass'n, 336 U.S. 460 (1949)

Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U.S. 186 (1974)

McLain v. Real Estate Bd. of New Orleans, Inc., 444 U.S. 232 (1980)

Summit Health Ltd. v. Pinhas, 500 U.S. 322 (1991) (± Oyez)

 

Commerce Clause cases

 

 

Noerr-Pennington cases

Eastern R. R. Presidents Conf. v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961)

 

 

United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965) and 381 U.S. 697 (1965) (dissenting and concurring opinion)

District court

Complaint, Lewis v. Pennington, Civ. No. 3431 (E.D. Tenn. filed Jan. 6, 1958)

Docket sheet

Record index

Answer of Defendants (Feb. 14, 1958)

Cross-Claim (Feb. 14, 1958) (against plaintiffs and the United Mine Workers)

Verdict Form No. 1 (May 19, 1961) (against against the UMW on the cross-claim)

Verdict Form No. 2 (May 19, 1961) (against the trustees on the conspiracy counterclaim)

Opinion Rendered from the Bench (July 31, 1961)

Judgment (Aug. 2, 1961)

Sixth Circuit

Pennington v. United Mine Workers of Am., 325 F.2d 804 (6th Cir. 1963)

Supreme Court

United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965) and 381 U.S. 697 (1965) (dissenting and concurring opinion)

On remand: E.D. Tenn

Lewis v. Pennington, 257 F. Supp. 815 (E.D. Tenn. 1966)

Final Judgment (Aug. 1, 1966)

On appeal to the Sixth Circuit:

, aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 400 F.2d 806 (6th Cir. 1968).

     

The Indianapolis Ready-Mix Concrete Follow-On Actions

Initial complaint

Class Action Complaint, Boyle Constr. Mgmt., Inc. v. Irving Materials, Inc. and Unnamed Co-Conspirators, No. 1:05-cv-0979-SEB-VSS) (S.D. Ind. filed June 30, 2005)

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 1
(scope and purpose)

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 2
(one form of action)

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 3
(commencement of action)

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 7
(pleadings allowed; form of motions and other papers)

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 8
(general rules of pleading)

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)
(pleading special matters—fraud)

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 10
(form of pleadings)

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 11
(signing pleadings, motions, and other papers; representations to the court; sanctions)

Docket Sheet (downloaded Nov. 1, 2010) (docket closed Sept. 14, 2010)

Private cause of action

± Clayton Act § 4(a), 15 U.S.C. § 15(a)
(treble damages)

± Clayton Act § 16, 15 U.S.C. § 26
(private injunctive relief)

± Clayton Act § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 12
(definitions)

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 38
(right to a jury trial; demand)

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 39
(trial by jury or by the court)

 
Subject matter jurisdiction

± 28 U.S.C. § 1331
(federal question jurisdiction)

± 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a)
(special federal antitrust jurisdiction)

 
Personal jurisdiction and venue

± 28 U.S.C. § 1391
(general venue statute)

± Clayton Act § 4(a), 15 U.S.C. § 15(a)
(venue in treble damages actions)

± Clayton Act § 16, 15 U.S.C. § 26
(venue in private injunctive relief actions)

± Clayton Act § 12, 15 U.S.C. § 22
(antitrust venue statute for corporations)

NB: Significant changes to the federal personal jurisdiction and venue statutes that have not yet been codified in the United States Code were enacted in early 2011 in the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112–63, 125 Stat. 758 (2011). For an explanation of the changes, see ± Arthur Hellman, The Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act is Now Law, JURIST - Forum, Dec. 30, 2011.

KM Enters., Inc. v. Global Traffic Techs., Inc., No. 12–3406 (7th Cir. Aug. 2, 2013) (affirming grant of motion to dismiss for lack of venue) (reported at 725 F.3d 718)

In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig., Civ. A. No. 1:08-MDL-1935 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2009) (reported as 674 F. Supp. 2d 580) (detailed analysis of specific and general personal jurisdiction over a variety of entities)

 

Prudential standing limitations

In re Plasma-Derivative Protein Therapies Antitrust Litig., No. MDL 2109, 09 C 7666 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2012) (reported at 2012 WL 39766)

Antitrust injury requirement:

Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477 (1977) (defining antitrust injury and establishing requirement in Clayton Act § 4 actions for treble damages) (± Oyez), vacating and remanding 523 F.2d 262 (3d Cir. 1975)

Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U.S. 104 (1986) (requiring actual or threatened antitrust injury in Clayton Act § 16 actions for injunctive relief) (± Oyez)

Indirect purchasers:

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) (holding that indirect purchasers, with some limited exceptions, lack prudential standing to recover damages from overcharges) (± Oyez)

See Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 392 U.S. 481 (1968) (± Oyez)

± Andrew I. Gavil, Antitrust Remedy Wars Episode I: Illinois Brick from Inside the Supreme Court, 79 St. John's L. Rev. 553 (2005)

± Richard A. Posner & William M. Landes, Should Indirect Purchasers Have Standing to Sue under the Antitrust Laws? An Economic Analysis of the Rule of Illinois Brick, 46 U. Chi. L. Rev. 602 (1979).

California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989) (holding that federal indirect purchaser doctrine does not preempt state laws) (± Oyez)

In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., No. 10-17354 (9th Cir. July 12, 2012) (reported as 686 F.3d 741)

"Proper parties" requirement:

Associated Gen. Contractors v. Calif. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (1983) (± Oyez)

Commentary

Stephen V. Bomse, Prudential Limitations on Private U.S. Antitrust Enforcement, in 3 Issues In Competition Law and Policy 2259 (ABA Section of Antitrust Law 2008)

Affecting trade or commerce

Gulf Coast Hotel-Motel Ass'n v. Mississippi Gulf Coast Golf Course Ass'n, No. 10-60844 (5th Cir. Sept. 27, 2011) (reported at 658 F.3d 500)

Major precedents:

McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans, Inc., 444 U.S. 232 (1980) (± Oyez)

Summit Health, Ltd. v. Pinhas, 500 U.S. 322 (1991) (± Oyez)

See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U.S. 186 (1974) (comparing Clayton Act requirements) (± Oyez)

See generally United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (on reach of Commerce Clause) (± Oyez)

Commercial activity

Pennsylvania v. NCAA, No. 1:13-cv-00006-YK (M.D. Pa. June 6, 2013) (granting motion to dismiss) (see below for the complaint and briefs in this case)

 
Statute of limitations

± Clayton Act § 4b, 15 U.S.C. § 15b
(statute of limitations for treble damages)

Order Denying the IMI Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Price Fixing Litig., No. 1:05-CV-00979-SEB-VSS (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2006)

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)
(motion for judgment on the pleadings)


 

 

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (1971) (± Oyez)

IMI Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Regarding Claims Outside Statute of Limitations (Dec. 19, 2005)

IMI Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Regarding Claims Outside Statute of Limitations (Dec. 19, 2005)

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to IMI Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Regarding Claims Outside Statute of Limitations (Jan. 26, 2007) (exhibit)

IMI Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Mar. 17, 2006)

Plaintiffs’ Surreply Memorandum in Opposition to IMI Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Mar. 27, 2006)

 

Order, In re Aspartame Antitrust Litig., No. 2:06-CV-1732-LDD (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2008) (reported at 2008 WL 4724094)

NB: The district court's order was affirmed by the Third Circuit in an unpublished opinion. See In re Aspartame Antitrust Litig., No. 09-1487, 2011 WL 263647 (3d Cir. Jan. 28, 2011) (not precedential).

Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, In re Aspartame Antitrust Litig., No. 2:06-CV-1732-LDD (E.D. Pa. filed June 30, 2006)

Tolling of the statute of limitations during government actions

± Clayton Act § 5(i), 15 U.S.C. § 16(i) (tolling during pendency of government actions)

 
Amended Consolidated Complaint

 

Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Price Fixing Litig., No. 1:05-cv-0979-SEB-VSS) (S.D. Ind. filed Oct. 19, 2005)

Example of an answer:

Answer of Defendants Shelby Gravel, Inc., Philip E. Haehl and Richard Haehl to Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Price Fixing Litig., No. 1:05-cv-0979-SEB-VSS) (S.D. Ind. filed Feb. 2, 2006)

Second Amended Consolidated Complaint

 

Second Amended Class Action Complaint, In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Antitrust Litig., Master Docket No. 1:05-cv-00979-SEB-VSS (S.D. Ind. filed Mar. 8, 2007)

Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Price Fixing Litig., No. 1:05-cv-0979-SEB-VSS) (S.D. Ind. filed Jan. 26, 2007)

Example of an answer:

IMI Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint and Jury Request (Apr. 12, 2007)

Consolidation of related actions

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 42
(consolidation)

Order of Consolidation, In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litig., No. C 07-0086 SBA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2007)

Memorandum & Order, In re American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litig., Civ. A. No. 1:10-cv-04496-NGG-RER (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2014) (denying Amex's motion to consolidate U.S. action with 15 state and private actions for the purposes of trial)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Consolidate for the Purpose of Trial (Sept. 26, 2013) (filed under seal)

Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate for the Purpose of Trial (Nov. 21, 2011)

Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Defendants' Motion to Consolidate for the Purpose of Trial (Jan. 9, 2014) (filed under seal)

United States v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., Civ. A. No. 99-5 MMS (D. Del. Oct. 24, 1999) (denying Dentsply's motion to consolidate government and two tag-along actions) (reported as 190 F.R.D. 140)

Transfer of venue

± 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
(transfer of venue)

 
 

Memorandum Opinion, United States v. H&R Block, Inc., No. 11-00948 (BAH) (D.D.C. June 6, 2011)

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue (May 27, 2011)

Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue (June 2, 2011)

Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Defendants' Motion to Transfer (June 2, 2011)

See here for more case materials

 

 

Memorandum Opinion, FTC v. Cephalon, Inc., Civ. A. No. 1:08-cv-00244-JDB (D.D.C. Apr. 28, 2008)

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 28, 2015) (transferor court)

Defendant Cephalon, Inc.’s Motion to Transfer (Feb. 20, 2008)

Federal Trade Commission’s Opposition to Cephalon’s Motion to Transfer (Mar. 6, 2008)

Defendant Cephalon, Inc.'s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer (Mar. 17, 2008)

Transfer Order (Apr. 28, 2008) (transferring case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania)

Multidistrict litigation

Transfer Order, In re Fretted Musical Instruments Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2121 (J.P.M.L. Dec. 9, 2009)

± 28 U.S.C. § 1407

± United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation web site

± Pending MDLs by docket type

± Rules of Procedure (effective July 6, 2011)

Other Fretted Instruments JPML materials:

Docket sheet (downlloaded Mar. 29, 2016)

Plaintiff David Giambusso's Motion for Transfer and Coordination or Consolidation under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (Oct. 7, 2009) (suggesting transfer to the Southern District of California)

Fender Musical Instruments Corporation's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Transfer (Oct. 27, 2009) (supporting transfer to the Southern District of California)

Interested Party Plaintiffs Kenneth Manyin, Russell Melton and Jon Bandish's Joint Response in Support of Transfer to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Oct. 27, 2009)

Plaintiff Bryan Roach's Memorandum of Law in Response to Various Parties' Motions for Transfer and Coordination of Related Antitrust Actions Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (Nov. 3, 2009) (supporting transfer to the Eastern District of Texas)

Movant David Giambusso's Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Transfer to the Southern District of California (Nov. 9, 2009)

Order Renaming Litigation (Dec. 9, 2009) (renaming as In re Musical Instruments and Equipment Antitrust Litigation)

Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-1) (Dec. 15, 2009)

Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-2) (Jan. 13, 2010)

Transfer Order (Apr. 1, 2010)

Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-3) (Mar. 12, 2010)

S.D. Cal

Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, In re Fretted Musical Instruments Antitrust Litig., 3:09-md-02121-LAB -POR (S.D. Cal. filed July 16, 2010)

Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 4, 2014)

Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Mar. 26, 2012)

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Mar. 26, 2012)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Apr. 20, 2012)

Defendants’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (May 4, 2012)

Order Dismissing Federal Claims and Order Certifying Issue for Appeal (Aug. 20, 2012)

Judgment in a Civil Case (Aug. 21, 2012)

Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Sept. 10, 2012)

Ninth Circuit

In re Musical Instruments & Equip. Antitrust Litig., No. 12-56674 (9th Cir. Sept. 25, 2015) (affirming dismissal)

For more on MDL, see below

 

Williams v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., No. 6:09-cv-1056-Orl-19GJK (M.D. Fla. July 28, 2009) (reported at 2009 WL 2256018)

 
 

Memorandum and Order, In re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litig., No. 1:11-cv-05450-NRB (July 18, 2012)

 
 

Order Denying Transfer, In re Fresh Dairy Prods. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2340 (J.P.M.L. Apr. 17, 2012) (reported at 856 F. Supp. 2d 1344)

 
 

Order Suggesting Remand to Transferor Courts, In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., Master File No. C07-1827 SI (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2013)

Conditional Remand Order, In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1827 (J.P.M.L. July 8, 2013)

 
Case management plan

Case Management Plan and Order Providing for Consolidation and Organizational Matters, In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Price Fixing Litig., No. 1:05-cv-0979-SEB-VSS) (S.D. Ind. filed Oct. 31, 2005)

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 16
(pretrial conferences; scheduling; management)

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation & Federal Judicial Center, Ten Steps to Better Case Management A Guide for Multidistrict Litigation Transferee Judges (2009)

Protective order

Protective Order, In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Price Fixing Litig., No. 1:05-cv-0979-SEB-VSS) (S.D. Ind. filed Mar. 2, 2006)

± Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)
(protective orders)

In re Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litig., Master File No. 2:08-MD-1000 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 25, 2009) (reported as 666 F. Supp. 2d 908)

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 10, 2011)

Protective Order (Apr. 14, 2008)

Memorandum Opinion and Order (Sept. 25, 2009)

Memorandum Opinion (Nov. 3, 2009)

Stay of discovery pending completion of DOJ's criminal proceedings

 

Government’s Motion to Limit the Scope of Discovery until Completion of Criminal Proceedings (Nov. 23, 2005)

Memorandum In Support of the Government’s Motion to Limit the Scope of Discovery until Completion of Criminal Proceedings (Nov. 23, 2005)

Order granting Government's ex parte motion (Nov. 28, 2005)

Defendants Builder’s Concrete & Supply, Inc. and Gus B. Nuckols, III's Motion to Reconsider, or in The Alternative, to Clarify the Order Limiting the Scope of Discovery until Completion of Criminal Proceedings (Dec. 9, 2005)

Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion of Defendants Builders Concrete & Supply, Inc. and Gus B. Nuckols to Reconsider, or, in the Alternative, to Clarify Order Limiting the Scope of Discovery until the Completion of Criminal Proceedings (Dec. 21, 2005)

Government’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Builder’s Concrete & Supply, Inc. and Gus B. Nuckols, III's Motion to Reconsider, or in the Alternative, to Clarify the Order Limiting the Scope of Discovery until the Completion of Criminal Proceedings (Dec. 22, 2005)

IMI Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Builder's Concrete's Motion to Reconsider Discovery Order (Dec. 22, 2005)

Defendants Builder’s Concrete & Supply, Inc. and Gus B. Nuckols, III's Consolidated Reply in Support of their Motion to Reconsider, or in the Alternative, to Clarify the Order Limiting the Scope of Discovery until Completion of Criminal Proceedings (Jan. 9, 2006)

NB: No order appears on the docket sheet deciding the motion for reconsideration.

Discovery

 

American Concrete’s Response to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories to All Defendants (Feb. 28, 2007)

Defendant Chris Beaver’s Objections To Plaintiff's First Set Of Interrogatories (May 17, 2007)

Defendant Ma-Ri-Al Corp.'s Objections To Plaintiff's Interrogatories (May 17, 2007)

IMI Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories (Feb. 21, 2007)

Treble damages

Statement of Damages (S.D.N.Y. form)

 
Measure of damages
 

± Herbert Hovenkamp, A Primer on Antitrust Damages (rev. Feb. 28, 2011)

± Theon van Dijk & Frank Verboven, Quantification of Damages, in 3 Issues in Competition Law and Policy 2331 (ABA Section of Antitrust Law 2008).

± Roundtable on the Quantification of Harm to Competition by National Courts and Competition Agencies (OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee, DAF/COMP(2011)25, Nov. 27, 2012).

A Note by the Delegation of the United States,

Umbrella damages

 

 
—Rejected
   
—Accepted
 

Amended Complaint, County of San Mateo v. CSL Limited, No. 3:10-cv-05686-JSC (N.D. Cal. filed July 1, 2013) (original complaint filed Dec. 14, 2010)

Expert testimony on damages

Memorandum Decision and Order, In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig., No. 1:06-md-01738-BMC-JO (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2012) (rejecting plaintiffs' Daubert motion to exclude defendant's expert rebuttal testimony on damages)

Expert Report of B. Douglas Bernheim, Ph.D. (Nov. 14, 2008).

This is the plaintiffs' expert report in the Vitamin C litigation. Defendant's hired Dr. Lawrence Wu as a rebuttal expert to challenge Bernheim's report. Plaintiff's filed its Daubert motion to exclude Wu's report.

Notice of Plaintiffs' Motion and Motion to Exclude Defendants' Expert Testimony, In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig., No. 1:06-md-01738-BMC-JO (E.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 28, 2012)

Briefs filed under seal

Co-violator liability
 

Atlanta v. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipeworks, 127 F. 23 (6th Cir. 1902), aff'd, 203 U.S. 390 (1906) (joint and several liability)

Texas Indus., Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630 (1981) (± Oyez) (no right of contribution)

± Flintkote Co. v. Lysfjord, 246 F.2d 368 (9th Cir. 1957) (recognizing rule that partial settlement amounts are offset against post-trebled damages, not actual damages)

Judgment sharing agreements

Order Denying Motion to Void Judgment Sharing Agreement, California v. Infineon Techs. AG, No. C 06-4333 PJH, 2007 WL 6197288 (N.D. Cal. filed Nov 29, 2007)

See below for more materials

Preliminary injunctions

 

Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss the State of Florida's Claims for Injunctive Relief, Florida v. LG Elecs., Inc.., No. 3:07-cv-05944-SC, MDL No. 1917 (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 4, 2012)

NB: This case is part of In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. 3:07-cv-05944-SC, MDL No. 1917 (N.D. Cal. filed Nov. 26, 2007)(docket sheet—downloaded Apr. 3, 2014)

Attorneys' fees

Order Granting Attorneys' Fees and Costs, Masimo Corp. v. Tyco Health Care Group, L.P., No. CV 02-4770 MRP (AJWx) (C.D. Cal. filed Nov. 5, 2007)

NB: The statutory fee-shifting approach in Masimo does not strictly work in the Ready-Mix litigation, since Ready-Mix was a class action and attorney's fees are likely to awarded under the common fund doctrine rather than the Clayton Act. We will discuss the common fund doctrine when we talk about class actions.

See below for more materials

Effect of prior government actions

± Clayton Act § 5(a), 15 U.S.C. § 16(a)
(prima facie effect)

Opinion and Order, Discover Fin. Servs. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., No. 04-CV-7844 (BSJ)(DFE) (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 20, 2008) (reported as 598 F. Supp. 2d 394) (private action following ± United States v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 344 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2003), aff'g 163 F. Supp. 2d 322 (S.D.N.Y.2001))

See below for more materials

Reference Materials

Federal Judicial Center

± Federal Judicial Center web site

± Manual for Complex Litigation (4th ed. 2004)

Role of private enforcement

Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U.S. 251 (1972) (finding that the private cause of action provisions in the antitrust laws were designed to encourage private enforcement both to provide compensation to those injured by antitrust violations and to create "private attorneys general" whose presence will deter future antitrust violations) (± Oyez)

± Joshua P. Davis & Robert H. Lande, Towards an Empirical and Theoretical Assessment of Private Antitrust Enforcement (Univ. of San Francisco Law Research Paper 2012).

± Joshua P. Davis & Robert H. Lande, Summaries of Twenty Cases of Successful Private Antitrust Enforcement (Nov. 1, 2011).

± Robert H. Lande & Joshua P. Davis, Benefits From Private Antitrust Enforcement: An Analysis of Forty Cases, 42 U.S.F. L. Rev. 879 (2008).

± Paul E. Godek, Does the Tail Wag the Dog? Sixty Years of Government and Private Antitrust In the Federal Courts, Antitrust Source, Dec. 2009.

± Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee, Private Remedies (DAF/COMP(2006)34, rev. Jan. 8, 2008).

Treble damage actions

Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 (1979) (± Oyez), rev'g 579 F.2d 1077 (8th Cir. 1978) (recognizing an individual consumer who purchased a price-fixed hearing for personal use as a "person" was injured in her "business or property" within the meaning of Clayton Act § 4)

Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. City of Atlanta, 203 U.S. 390 (1906) (recognizing municipal corporation as a "person")

Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U.S. 251 (1972) (state may not sue for injury to its general economy) (± Oyez)

Pfizer, Inc. v. India, 434 U.S. 308 (1978) (recognizing foreign government as "person") (± Oyez)

Article III standing

Dominguez v. UAL Corp., No. 10-7138 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 27, 2012) (reported as 666 F.3d 1359) (vacating summary judgment on the merits for defendant and remanding with instructions to dismiss for lack of Article III standing)

Subject matter jurisdiction

Commentary

± Evan Caminker, Allocating the Judicial Power in a 'Unified Judiciary' (Restructuring Federal Courts), 78 Tex. L. Rev. 1513 (2000)

Jurisdictional reach of state antitrust laws

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302 (1981)

AT&T Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 11-16188 (9th Cir. 2013) (reported as 707 F.3d 1106), rev'g Nos. M 07–1827 SI, C 09–4997 SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2010)

District court (Nos. M 07-1827 SI, C 09-4997)

Docket sheet (No. C 09-4997 SI) (downloaded Feb. 23, 2014)
Docket sheet (No. M 07-1827 SI) (downloaded Feb. 23, 2014)

Second Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief (July 23, 2010)

Order Granting Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss (Nov. 12, 2010)

Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) (Jan. 12, 2011)

Joint Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) (Jan. 27, 2011)

Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Certify under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) (Feb. 3, 2011)

Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Mar. 4, 2011)

Ninth Circuit (No. 11-16188)

AT&T Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 11-16188 (9th Cir. docketed May 11, 2011)

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 23, 2014)

Appellants' Opening Brief (Sept. 1, 2011) (filed under seal)

Brief of Amicus Curiae the State of California (Sept. 8, 2011)

Appellees’ Joint Answering Brief (Oct. 24, 2011)

Appellants’ Reply Brief (Nov. 22, 2011)

Opinion (Feb. 14, 2013)

Mandate (Mar. 11, 2013)

 

± Order Adopting in Part and Modifying in Part Special Master's Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Direct Action Plaintiffs' Complaints, In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1917, No. C-07-5944-SC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2013) (reported at 2013 WL 4505701)

Personal jurisdiction/ venue

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)

± World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (± Oyez)

± Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (± Oyez)

± Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (± Oyez)

± Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987)

± Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, No. 10–76 (June 27, 2011) (reported at 131 S. Ct. 2846)

± J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, No. 09–1343 (June 27, 2011) (reported at 131 S. Ct. 2780)

 

KM Enters., Inc. v. Global Traffic Techs., Inc., No. 12–3406 (7th Cir. Aug. 2, 2013) (affirming grant of motion to dismiss for lack of venue) (reported at 725 F.3d 718)

± In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litig., 358 F.3d 288 (3d Cir. 2004)

± Action Embroidery Corp. v. Atlantic Embroidery, Inc., 368 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2004) (national contacts theory)

± Daniel v. American Bd. of Emergency Med., 428 F.3d 408 (2d Cir. 2005) (local contacts theory)

In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig., Civ. A. No. 1:08-MDL-1935 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2009) (reported as 674 F. Supp. 2d 580) (detailed analysis of specific and general personal jurisdiction over a variety of entities)

Commentary

Herbert Hovenkamp, Personal Jurisdiction and Venue in Private Antitrust Actions in the Federal Courts: A Policy Analysis, 67 Iowa L. Rev. 485 (1982)

Forum selection clauses

TradeComet.com LLC v. Google, Inc., Civ. a. No. Case 1:09-cv-01400 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 5, 2010) (dismissing complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(3) for improper venue based on a forum selection clause in the parties’ advertising contracts)

Multidistrict litigation (MDL)

± 28 U.S.C. § 1407

± United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation web site

Calendar Year Statistics of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (2015)

± Pending MDLs by docket type

±± Rules of Procedure (effective July 6, 2011)

Significant precedents

Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp., No. 13–1174 (Jan. 21, 2015) (reported at 135 S. Ct. 897) (on appealability of dismissed cases)

± Lexecon v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998)

In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litig., Nos. 13-1608 et al. (6th Cir. 2013) (reported as 731 F.3d 586) (on consolidated complaints)

Recent examples

Transfer Order, In re Transitions Lenses Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2173 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 6, 2010)

± Docket sheet
Transfer Order
Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-1) (Aug. 25, 2010)
Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-2) (Aug. 25, 2010)

Commentary

± Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, Remanding Multidistrict Litigation, 75 La. L. Rev. 399 (2014).

± Edward F. Sherman,When Remand is Appropriate in Multidistrict Litigation, 75 La. L. Rev. 455 (2014)

± John G. Heyburn II, A View from the Panel: Part of the Solution, 82 Tulane L. Rev. 2225 (2008)

± Eldon E. Fallon, Jeremy T. Grabill & Robert Pitard Wynne, Bellwether Trials in Multidistrict Litigation, 82 Tulane L. Rev. 2323 (2008)

Antitrust injury requirement

Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477 (1977) (defining antitrust injury and establishing requirement in Clayton Act § 4 actions for treble damages) (± Oyez), vacating and remanding 523 F.2d 262 (3d Cir. 1975)

Blue Shield of Va. v. McCready, 457 U.S. 465 (1982) (antitrust injury to consumers) (± Oyez)

Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U.S. 104 (1986) (requiring actual or threatened antitrust injury in Clayton Act § 16 actions for injunctive relief) (± Oyez)

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328 (1990) (finding no antitrust injury due to lost sales allegedly due to vertically-fixed low but not predatory prices of its competitors in a then per se-illegal vertical maximum resale price maintenance scheme) (± Oyez)

Recent antitrust injury cases

Ethypharm S.A. France v. Abbott Labs., No. 11–3602 (3d Cir. Jan. 23, 2013) (reported as 707 F.3d 223)

Jebaco, Inc. v. Harrah's Operating Co., No. 08-30289 (5th Cir. Oct. 30, 2009) (reported as 587 F.3d 314) (addressing standing of a potential competitor)

James Cape & Sons Co. v. PCC Constr. Co., No. 05-3894 (7th Cir. June 28, 2006) (reported at 453 F.3d 396) (± oral argument) (finding no antitrust injury where the plaintiff construction firm was underbid by a bidding cartel)

Plea Agreement, United States v. Beaudoin, No. 05-CR-165 (E.D. Wis. June 29, 2005) (± DOJ web page)

Prudential standing/"Proper parties" requirement

Cases

Associated Gen. Contractors v. Calif. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (1983) (± Oyez)

± In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1917, No. C-07-5944-SC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2013) (reported at 2013 WL 4505701)

Commentary

Stephen V. Bomse, Prudential Limitations on Private U.S. Antitrust Enforcement, in 3 Issues In Competition Law and Policy 2259 (ABA Section of Antitrust Law 2008)

Indirect purchaser doctrine

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) (holding that indirect purchasers, with some limited exceptions, lack prudential standing to recover damages from overcharges) (± Oyez)

See Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 392 U.S. 481 (1968) (± Oyez)

± Andrew I. Gavil, Antitrust Remedy Wars Episode I: Illinois Brick from Inside the Supreme Court, 79 St. John's L. Rev. 5523 (2005).

± Richard A. Posner & William M. Landes, Should Indirect Purchasers Have Standing to Sue under the Antitrust Laws? An Economic Analysis of the Rule of Illinois Brick, 46 U. Chi. L. Rev. 602 (1979).

California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989) (holding that federal indirect purchaser doctrine does not preempt state laws) (± Oyez)

± In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1917, No. C-07-5944-SC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2013) (reported at 2013 WL 4505701)

State indirect purchaser claims

In re Potash Antitrust Litig., 667 F. Supp. 2d 907 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (consolidated federal direct purchaser and state indirect purchaser class actions)

Leonardo J. Bassow & Thomas W. Ross, Measuring the True Harm from Price-Fixing to Both Direct and Indirect Purchasers (rev. Jan. 23, 2008), final version at 58 J. Indus. Econ. 895 (2010).

Frank Verboven & Theon van Dijk, Cartel Damages Claims and the Passing-On Defense, 58 J. Indus. Econ. 457 (2009).

Suppliers to targeted competitors

Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., Nos. 02-00571, 04-00084 (6th Cir. 2012) (reported as 697 F.3d 387).

Fact of injury/amount of damages distinction

Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U.S. 555 (1931)

J. Truitt Payne Co. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 451 U.S. 557 (1981) (± Oyez)

Types of damages

± John M. Connor, Forensic Economics: An Introduction with Special Emphasis on Price Fixing (Mar. 2007), final version at 4 J. Competition L. & Econ. 31 (2008).

Quantification of damages

European Comm'n, A Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Certain Rules Governing Actions for Damages under National Law for Infringements (June 11, 2013).

European Comm'n, Draft Guidance Paper, Quantifying Harm in Actions for Damages Based on Breaches of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (June 2011).

ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Proving Antitrust Damages: Legal and Economic Issues (2d ed. 2010).

± Giovanni Notaro, Assessing Methods for the Quantification of Antitrust Damages. An Application to the Pasta Cartel in Italy (2013), final version at 10 J. competition L. & Econ. 87 (2014).

± Lear Competition Note, Statistical Significance and the Standard of Proof in Antitrust Damage Quantification (Nov. 2013).

± Ulrich Laitenberger & Florian Smuda, Estimating Consumer Damages in Cartel Cases (ZEW - Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 13-069, Sept. 16, 2013).

± Frank Maier-Rigaud & Ulrich Schwalbe, Quantification of Antitrust Damages (IESEG Working Paper Series 2013-ECO-09, June 2013).

Kai Hüschelrath, Kathrin Müller & Tobias Veith, Estimating Damages from Price-Fixing: The Value of Transaction Data (ZEW - Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 12-036, 2012).

± J. Douglas Zona, Structural Approaches to Estimating Overcharges In Price-Fixing Cases, 77 Antitrust L.J. 473 (2011)

± Herbert Hovenkamp, Quantification of Harm in Private Antitrust Actions in the United States (Feb. 2011)

± Oxera, Quantifying Damages: A Step Towards Practical Guidance (Jan. 2010)

± Oxera, Quantifying Antitrust Damages: Towards Non-Binding Guidance for Courts, Study prepared for the European Commission (Dec. 2009)

± Daniel L. Rubinfeld, Antitrust Damages (Nov. 21, 2009), forthcoming in Research Handbook on the Economics of Antitrust Law (Einer Elhauge ed.)

Daniel L. Rubinfeld & Justin McCrary, Measuring Benchmark Damages in Antitrust Litigation (Oct. 2009)

± Oxera, Quantifying Antitrust Damages: Towards Non-Binding Guidance for Courts, Study prepared for the European Commission (Dec. 2009)

Martijn A. Han, Maarten Pieter Schinkel & Jan Tuinstra, The Overcharge as a Measure for Antitrust Damages (Amsterdam Center for Law & Economics Working Paper No. 2008-08, July 2009).

Yuliya Bolotova, John M. Connor & Douglas J. Miller, Factors Influencing the Magnitude of Cartel Overcharges: An Empirical Analysis of the U.S. Market, 5 J. Competition L. & Econ. 361 (2009).

Theon van Dijk & Frank Verboven, Quantification of Damages, in 3 Issues In Competition Law and Policy 2331 (ABA Section of Antitrust Law 2008)

± Yuliya Bolotova, Cartel Overcharges: An Empirical Analysis (Sept. 15, 2006), final version at 70 J. Econ. Behavior & Org. 321 (2009)

± Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR) & Luiss Guido Carli (LUISS), Making Antitrust Damages Actions More Effective in the EU: Welfare Impact and Potential Scenarios, Report for the European Commission (Dec. 21, 2007).

± James F. Nieberding, Estimating Overcharges in Antitrust Cases Using a Reduced-Form Approach: Methods and Issues, 9 J. Applied Econ. 361 (2006)

± Mark Glueck & Eileen Reed, Use and Abuse of Regression Analysis in Determining Damages in Antitrust (Mar. 2006)

± Emily Clark, Mat Hughes & David Wirth, Study on the Conditions of Claims for Damages in Case of Infringement of EC Competition Rules: Analysis of Economic Models for the Calculation of Damages (Ashurst Study For The European Commission, 2004)

± Robert E. Hall & Victoria A. Lazear, Reference Guide on Estimation of Economic Losses in Damages Awards, in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (2d ed. 2000).

ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Proving Antitrust Damages: Legal and Economic Issues (1996).

Optimal damages

A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell, Costly Litigation and Optimal Damages (Harvard John M. Olin Discussion Paper No. 739, Nov. 2012).

Interest in treble damage awards

Prejudgment interest

± 15 U.S.C. § 15(a)

Order re Motions In Limine re Plaintiffs’ Other Actions and Damages, In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. 3:07-cv-05944-JST (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2016)

In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1261 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (reported at (504 F. Supp. 2d 38)

Postjudgment interest

± 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Interest [post-judgment]

± Southern District of New York, Post-Judgment Interest Rates

Damages in indirect purchaser cases

± Frank Verboven & Theon van Dijk, Cartel Damages Claims and the Passing-On Defense (Mar. 2009)

Joint and several liability

Atlanta v. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipeworks, 127 F. 23 (6th Cir. 1902), aff'd, 203 U.S. 390 (1906)

± Joseph Angland, Joint and Several Liability, Contribution, and Claim Reduction, in 3 Issues In Competition Law and Policy 2369 (ABA Section of Antitrust Law 2008)

ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Contribution and Claim Reduction in Antitrust Litigation (1986).

No right to contribution

Texas Indus., Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630 (1981) (± Oyez)

± Harry M. Reasoner, Prepared Statement Before the Antitrust Modernization Commission Hearing on Civil Remedies: Joint & Several Liability, Contribution, and Claim Reduction (July 14, 2005).

Daubert motions to exclude expert testimony

Memorandum Opinion and Order, United States v. H&R Block, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-00948-BAH (D.D.C. Sept. 6, 2011) (unsealed pursuant to minute order on Dec. 8, 2011) (reported at 831 F. Supp. 2d 27)

Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude the 2011 Litigation Survey and Limit Defendants’ Expert Report (Aug. 19, 2011, redacted version filed Dec. 9, 2011).

Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude the 2011 Litigation Survey and Limit Defendants’ Expert Report (Aug. 24, 2013; redacted version filed Dec. 9, 2011)

Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude the 2011 Litigation Survey and Limit Defendants’ Expert Report (Aug. 26, 2011; redacted version filed Dec. 9, 2011).

 

Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., No. CV-00-20905 RMW (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2008) (reported at 2008 WL 73689)

Rambus Inc.'s Daubert Motion No. 1 to Exclude Certain Testimony of Richard J. Gilbert (Oct. 17, 2007)

Declaration of Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke in Support of Rambus Inc.'s Daubert Motion No. 1 to Exclude Certain Testimony of Richard J. Gilbert (Oct. 17, 2007)

Proposed Order (Oct. 17, 2013)

Memorandum in Opposition to Rambus Inc.'s Daubert Motion No. 1 to Exclude Certain Testimony of Richard J. Gilbert (Oct. 31, 2007)

Declaration of Richard J. Gilbert
Declaration of Belinda Vega

Reply in Support of Daubert Motion No. 1 to Exclude Certain Testimony of Richard J. Gilbert (Nov. 7, 2007)

Order Denying Rambus's Motion For Summary Judgment No. 1 on Monopolization and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Rambus's Daubert Motion No. 1 (Jan. 5, 2008)

 

Commentary

± Christine P. Bartholomew, Death By Daubert: The Continued Attack on Private Antitrust, 35 Cardozo L. Rev. 2147 (2014).

Malcolm B. Coate & Jeffrey H. Fischer, Daubert, Science, and Modern Game Theory: Implications for Merger Analysis (Oct. 1, 2009), 20 Supreme Court Econ. Rev. 125 (2012).

± James Langenfeld & Christopher Alexander, Daubert and Other Gatekeeping Challenges of Antitrust Experts, Antitrust, Summer 2011, at 21 (appendix).

± Gregory J. Werden, The Admissibility of Expert Testimony, in 1 Issues in Competition Law and Policy 801 (ABA Section of Antitrust Law 2008)

± William H. Page & John E. Lopatka, Economic Authority and the Limits of Expertise in Antitrust Cases, 90 Cornell L. Rev. 617 (2005).

± Richard Posner, The Law and Economics of the Economic Expert Witness, 13 J. Econ. Perspectives 91(1999).

Implications for settlement

± Flintkote Co. v. Lysfjord, 246 F.2d 368 (9th Cir. 1957) (recognizing rule that partial settlement amounts are offset against post-trebled damages, not actual damages)

 

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint, In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., Master File No. C07-1827 SI (N.D. Cal. filed Nov. 5, 2007)

First Amended Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint, In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., Master File No. C07-1827 SI (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2008)

Second Amended Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint, In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., Master File No. C07-1827 SI (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2009)

Toshiba Corporation’s Answer to Second Amended Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint (Mar. 30, 2009)

Toshiba Entities’ Trial Brief in Support of their Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (June 20, 2012)

Trial Brief in Support of Toshiba Entities’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Additional Grounds (June 28, 2012)

Jury Instructions (June 28, 2012)

Jury Verdict (July 3, 2012) (direct purchaser class actions) (finding for plaintiff and actual damages against Toshiba of $87 million)

Toshiba Entities’ Motion to Set Off Settlement Amounts Against Special Verdict’s Damages Award (July 11, 2012)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Toshiba Entities’ Motion to Set Off Settlement Amounts Against Special Verdict’s Damages Award (July 25, 2012)

Notice of Withdrawal of Motion Due to Agreement in Principle to Settle Action (Aug. 22, 2012)

Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement with the Toshiba Defendants (____)

Exhibit A: Settlement Agreement

Letter to Judge Illston from [opt-out plaintiff] Dell Inc. re possible adverse effects of proposed settlement (Sept. 12, 2012) (asking for delay in preliminary fairness hearing)

Letter to Judge Illston from Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs responding to Dell letter (Sept. 13, 2012)

Order Denying Dell’s Motion to Intervene and Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement with Toshiba Defendants (Oct. 15, 2012)

Ultimately, the court approved the settlement (where Toshiba would pay $30 million to the class) and vacated the jury verdict against Toshiba.

 

Memorandum and Order, In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1616, Civ. No. 04-1616-JWL (D. Kan. July 26, 2013) (reducing judgment for tripled conspiratorial damages as found by jury by subtracting the prior settlement amounts).

Docket sheet (downloaded Sept. 22, 2013)

Jury Instructions (Feb. 20, 2013)

Question from the Jury (Feb. 20, 2013)

Jury Verdict (Feb. 20, 2013)

Judgment in a Civil Case (May 15, 2013) (awarding $1,200,147,117 in trebled damages)

Class Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Judgment (May 23, 2013)

The Dow Chemical Company’s Motion to Stay Execution on the Judgment Pending Appeal and Supporting Memorandum (May 23, 2013)

The Dow Chemical Company’s Motion to Amend the May 15, 2013 Judgment (June 6, 2013)

The Dow Chemical Company’s Response to Class Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Judgment and Memorandum in Support of Dow’s Motion to Amend the May 15, 2013 Judgment (June 6, 2013)

Class Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Class Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Judgment and Opposing the Dow Chemical Company’s Motion to Amend the Judgment (June 20, 2013)

Memorandum and Order (July 26, 2013)

Amended Judgment in a Civil Case (July 26, 2013)

Notice of Appeal (Aug. 22, 2013)

Stipulated Order Regarding The Dow Chemical Company’s Motion to Stay (Oct. 2, 2013)

Tenth Circuit

Docket sheet No. 13-3215 (downloaded September 30, 2014)

Appellant’s Opening Brief (Dec. 6, 2013)

Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners Urging Reversal (Dec. 13, 2013)

Class Plaintiffs’ Response Brief (Feb. 14, 2014)

Appellant’s Reply Brief (Mar. 7, 2014)

To be argued May 14, 2014

Opinion (Sept. 29, 2014) (affirming judgement of the district court)

Judgment (Sept. 29, 2014)

 

Judgment sharing agreements

Order Denying Motion to Void Judgment Sharing Agreement, California v. Infineon Techs. AG, No. C 06-4333 PJH, 2007 WL 6197288 (N.D. Cal. filed Nov 29, 2007)

Docket sheet (downloaded Dec. 27, 2009)

Plaintiff States’ Motion to Void Certain Defendants’ Agreement (re: Settlement) (Oct. 5, 2007)

Addendum to Plaintiff States’ Motion to Void Certain Defendants’ Agreement (re: Settlement) (Oct. 23, 2007)

Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Void Defendants' Judgment Sharing Agreement (Oct. 24, 2007) (Sanders Declaration and Exhibits)

Plaintiff States’ Reply in Support of Motion to Void Certain Defendants’ Agreement (re: Settlement) (Oct. 31, 2007) (Foote Declaration)

Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Joel Sanders, re Reply in Support of Motion to Void Certain Defendants’ Agreement (re: Settlement) (Oct. 31, 2007)

Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' Evidentiary Objections to Sanders Declaration Filed in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Void Defendants' Judgment Sharing Agreement (Nov. 7, 2007)

Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Kathleen Foote Filed in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Void Defendants’ Judgment Sharing Agreement (Nov. 7, 2007)

Mastercard Settlement and Judgment Sharing Agreement (Jan. 2011)

In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., Nos. 94 C 897, MDL 997, 1995 WL 221853 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 11, 1995)

Cimarron Pipeline Const., Inc. v. Nat'l Council on Compensation Ins., No. CIV-89-822-T, 1992 WL 350612 (W.D. Okl. Apr. 10, 1992)

In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., No. MDL-721, 1989 WL 996278 (D.P.R. 1989) (voiding a judgment sharing agreement)

± Christopher R. Leslie, Judgment-Sharing Agreements, 58 Duke L.J. 747 (2009)

± Daniel T. Dobrygowski, Judgment-Sharing Agreements: Fair to Defendants or Another Anticompetitive Restraint? (2008).

Economics of antitrust settlements

± Daniel L. Rubinfeld, Settlements in Antitrust Enforcement: A U.S. Economics Perspective, in European Competition Law Annual 2008, at 85 (Claus-Dieter Ehlermann & Mel Marquis, eds., 2010).

± Jeffrey M. Perloff, Daniel L. Rubinfeld & Paul Ruud, Antitrust Settlements and Trial Outcomes, 78 Rev. Econ. & Statistics 401 (1996).

Steven C. Salop & Lawrence J. White, Economic Analysis of Private Antitrust Litigation, 74 Geo. L. J. 1001 (1986).

Tax treatment of treble damages payments and recovery

± 26 U.S.C. § 162(g)

Robert W. Wood, Tax Effects of Antitrust Of Payments and Recoveries, Calif. Tax. Lawyer, Summer 2003, at 18.

Injunctive relief

eBay v. Mercexchange L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (patent case stating elements of traditional equitable test)

In re Ductile Iron Pipe Fittings (DIPF) Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litig., Civ. No. 12–169 (D.N.J. Oct. 2, 2013) (reported at 2013 WL 5503308) (granting motion to dismiss claims for injunctive relief where the plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts of ongoing or threatened harm) (see here for for the briefs and other papers on this case)

Discovery of leniency materials

Amended Complaint, In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litig., No. 12-md-02311 (E.D. Mich. filed Aug. 21, 2013)

Motion and Brief of the United States to Intervene and for a Temporary and Limited Stay of Certain Discovery (July 8, 2013)

Exhibit A - Order, In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Price Fixing LItig., No. 05-cv-979 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 2005) (order granting stay of discovery)
Exhibit B - In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Price Fixing Litig., No. 05-cv-979 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 19, 2006) (order lifting stay of discovery)
Exhibit C - In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., No. 07-cv-1827(N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2007) (order granting U.S. motion to stay discovery)
Exhibit D - In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., No. 07-cv-1827(N.D. Cal. May 27, 2008) (order modifying stay of discovery)
Exhibit E - Albee v. Korean Airlines Co., No. 07-cv-5107 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2008) (order granting U.S. motion to intervene and stay discovery)
Exhibit F - In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litig., No. 08-cv-2516 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)
Exhibit G - SEC v. LeCroy, No. 09-cv-02238(N.D. Ala. 2011)
Exhibit H - Declaration of Mark Grundvig (filed under seal)

Effect of prior government actions (estoppel and preclusion)

Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 392 U.S. 481 (1968) (± Oyez)

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979)

± In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litig., 355 F.3d 322 (4th Cir. 2004) (private action following ± United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001))

Order Denying Dell’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against AUO on Liability Issues Determined in the AUO Criminal Trial and Denying Dell’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Toshiba on Liability Issues Determined in the Toshiba Trial, In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig. (Dell Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp.), No. M 07-1827 SI, MDL. No. 1827 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2012)

± Opinion and Order, Discover Fin. Servs. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., No. 04-CV-7844 (BSJ)(DFE) (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 20, 2008) (reported as 598 F. Supp. 2d 394) (private action following ± United States v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 344 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2003), aff'g 163 F. Supp. 2d 322 (S.D.N.Y.2001))

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 12, 2010)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Discover's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Feb. 15, 2008) (filed publicly June 9, 2008)

Visa U.S.A.'s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Discover's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Mar. 24, 2008) (released publicly June 9, 2008)

Visa International Service Association's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Discover's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Mar. 24, 2008) (released publicly June 9, 2008)

MasterCard Incorporated's and MasterCard International Incorporated's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Discover's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Mar. 24, 2008) (released publicly June 9, 2008)

Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Discover's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Apr. 25, 2008) (filed publicly June 9, 2008)

 

Memorandum of Law in Support of Discover’s Motion Pursuant to Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act to Give Prima Facie Effect to Certain Facts that Were Necessary to the Ultimate Rulings in United States v. Visa/Mastercard and to Charge the Jury Accordingly (Oct. 1, 2008)

Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Support of Discover's Motion Pursuant to Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act to Give Prima Facie Effect to Certain Facts that Were Necessary to the Ultimate Rulings in United States v. Visa/Mastercard and to Charge the Jury Accordingly (Oct. 10, 2008)

 

Defendants' Proposed Jury Instructions; Proposed Verdict Form; and Proffer of Jury Instructions and Verdict Form (Oct. 1, 2008)

Exhibit A: Defendants Proposed Jury Instructions
Exhibit B: Defendants' Proposed Special Verdict Form
Exhibit C: Defendants' Proffer of Jury Instructions and Verdict Form for Credit Market Liability Issues

Stipulation and Order of Dismissal without Prejudice (Nov. 11, 2008)
Visa settled for $1.9 billion; MasterCard settled for $900 million (reported Oct. 14, 2008)

Commentary

± Stephen P. Freccero, The Use and Effect of an Antitrust Guilty Plea in Subsequent Civil Litigation, Competition—The Journal of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the State Bar of California Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring 2013).

Statute of limitations—Significant precedents

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (1971) (leading case) (± Oyez)

Application: ± GO Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 508 F.3d 170 (4th Cir. 2007)

American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) (tolling in class actions) (± Oyez)

Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983) (tolling in class actions) (± Oyez)

Statute of limitations—recent illustrative cases

Memorandum and Order, Schenker AG v. Societe Air France, No. 1:14-cv-04711-JG-PK (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (reported at 102 F. Supp. 3d 418)

Docket sheet (downloaded Dec. 23, 2015)

Notice of Qantas Airways Limited’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Jan. 9, 2015)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Qantas Airways Limited’s Motion to Dismiss Based on the Statute of Limitations (Jan. 9, 2015)

Schenker AG's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Qantas Airways Limited’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Jan. 30, 2015)

Reply Brief in Support of Defendant Qantas Airways Limited’s Motion to Dismiss Based on the Statute of Limitations (Feb. 6, 2015)

 

Order Granting Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss, In re Animation Workers Antitrust Litig., No.:14-CV-04062-LHK (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2015)

Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Jan. 9, 2015)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint (Feb. 9, 2015)

Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint (Mar. 2, 2015)

 

Hexcel Corp. v. Ineos Polymers, Inc., No. 10-56765 (9th Cir. June 1, 2012) (finding plaintiff constructive if not actual knowledge of claims prior to the earliest accrual date of the statute of limitations) (reported at 681 F.3d 1055)

Kearse v. Kaplan, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 4176 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2010) (dismissing complaint as time-barred for failure to adequately plead fraudulent concealment but granting leave to amend)

Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 16, 2010)

Go Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 06-2278 (4th Cir. Nov. 19, 2007) (reported at 508 F.3d 170)

Attorneys' fees

± Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. ___ (2010)

Special Master's Report and Recommendation re Best Buy's Motion for Fees and Costs and Hannstar's Objection to Bill of Costs, Best Buy Co. v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 10-CV-4572 SI (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2014).

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 5, 2014)

Special Verdict (Sept. 3, 2013)

The Best Buy Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Fees and Costs (Sept. 18, 2013)

Defendant Hannstar Display Corporation’s Opposition to Best Buy Plaintiffs’ Motion for Fees and Costs (Oct. 31, 2013)

Order Granting Attorneys' Fees and Costs, Masimo Corp. v. Tyco Health Care Group, L.P., No. CV 02-4770 MRP (AJWx) (C.D. Cal. filed Nov. 5, 2007)

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 12, 2010)
Memorandum of Decision re Post-Trial Motions (Mar. 23, 2006)
Order re Motion to Modify Judgment and for New Trial (June 21, 2006)
Judgment (June 29, 2007)
Memorandum of Decision on Damages and Plaintiff Masimo Corporation's Motion to Accept Proffered Evidence or Set Aside the Verdict (June 6, 2007)
Satisfaction of Judgment (June 29, 2007)

Mega-cases
 
—Heavey Electrical Equipment Cases

Commentary

Wayne E. Baker & Robert R. Faulkner, The Social Organization of Conspiracy: Illegal Networks in the Heavy Electrical Equipment Industry, 6 Am. Sociological Rev. 837 (1993).

Arbitration of antitrust disputes

Cases

Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1983)

Boardman v. Pacific Seafood Grp., 822 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2016)

Commentary

± William Kolasky, Arbitration of Antitrust Disputes, in 3 Issues In Competition Law and Policy 2405 (ABA Section of Antitrust Law 2008)

EU private actions

Directive on Antitrust Damages (Nov. 11, 2014) (± EC news release)

± EC web page

Case Studies

Zinc (private action 2014)
Wal-Mart
Penn State
Libor
Airline baggage fees
Aftermarket Automotive Lighting Products
Chocolate
Rambus v. Micron
Private equity
Vitamin C

Zinc
(private action 2014)

Plaintiffs’ Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint and Jury Trial Demand, In re Zinc Antitrust Litig., Civ. A. No. 14-cv-3728 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 28,. 2015) (original complaint filed May 23, 2014)

Docket sheet (downloaded Sept. 1, 2016)

Opinion and Order (Jan. 7, 2016) dismissing Section 1 counts with prejudice and dismissing Section 2 counts without prejudice) (reported at 155 F. Supp. 3d 337)

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Class Action Complaint and Jury Trial Demand (Feb. 11, 2016) (redline)

Opinion and Order (June 6, 2016) (denying motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Section 2 monopolization and attempted monopolization claims and granting motion to dismiss Section 7 merger claim)

Wal-Mart credit card
(private 2014)

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Visa USA Inc., No. 14-cv-5101 (W.D. Ark filed Mar, 25, 2014)

Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 28, 2014)

Penn State
(state parens patriae action 2013)

Complaint, Pennsylvania v. NCAA, No. 1:13-cv-00006-YK (M.D. Pa. filed Jan. 2, 2013)

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 17, 2014)

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Feb. 7, 2013)

Defendant’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Feb. 8, 2013)

Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Feb. 25, 2013)

Defendant’s Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Mar. 14, 2013)

Memorandum (June 6, 2013) (granting motion to dismiss)

LIBOR
(private action 2012)

Class Action Complaint, Adams v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 1:12-cv-07461 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 4, 2012)

Plaintiffs Annie Bell Adams, Dennis Paul Fobes, et al ., Application for Inclusion into In re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation , MDL No. 2262 (Oct. 14, 2012)

Airline Baggage Fees
(private action 2009)

Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, In re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., No. 1:09-md-02089-TCB (N.D. Ga. filed Feb. 1, 2010) (underlying individual complaints filed in 2009)

Docket sheet (downloaded Dec. 222, 2015)

Transfer Order, In re Airline Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2089 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 6, 2009)

Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (Feb. 1, 2010)

Defendant Airtran’s Answer to the Consolidated Amended Complaint (Aug. 16, 2010)

Answer of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Aug. 16, 2010)

Order (Feb. 18, 2010) (directing the parties to use the litigation name In re: Delta/Airtran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litigation)

 

Motion to dismiss

Defendant Airtran Airways, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (Mar. 8, 2010)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Airtran Airways, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (Mar. 8, 2010)

Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Mar. 8, 2010)

Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc.’s Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Dismiss (Mar. 8, 2010)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Apr. 12, 2010)

 

Motion for class certification

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel (June 30, 2010)

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of their Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel (June 30, 2010; unsealed Aug. 26, 2010)

Airtran’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel (Dec. 8, 2010)

Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Dec. 8, 2010)

Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel (Feb. 7, 2011)

Supplemental Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Sept. 10, 2012)

Airtran’s Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification (Oct. 28, 2013)

Delta Air Lines, Inc.’s Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Oct. 28, 2013)

Submission of motion for class certification (Nov. 25, 2013)

Order (Aug. 5, 2015)

Order (Aug. 17, 2015) (vacating order of class certification)

Defendants’ Joint Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Sept. 11, 2015)

Order (July 12, 2016) (granting class certification)

 

 

Motion for appointment of a neutral economic expert

Notice of Motion of Defendant Airtran Airways, Inc. for Court Appointment of a Neutral Economic Expert (Apr. 25, 2011)

Memorandum of Defendant Airtran Airways, Inc. in Support of its Motion for Court Appointment of a Neutral Economic Expert (Apr. 25, 2011)

Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc.’s Response to Airtran Airways Inc.’s Motion for Court Appointment of a Neutral Economic Expert (May 12, 2011)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant Airtran’s Motion for Appointment of a Neutral Economic Expert (May 12, 2011)

Notice of Withdrawal of Airtran Airways, Inc.’s Motion for Court Appointment of a Neutral Economic Expert (May 31, 2011)

 

Discovery sanctions

Special Master’s Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Discovery Sanctions (Nov. 21, 2014)

Special Master’s Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Report and Recommendation (Dec. 15, 2014)

Special Master’s Supplement to Report and Recommendation (Dec. 24, 2014)

Order (Aug. 3, 2015) (adopting in part and rejecting in part Report and Recommendation and granting plaintiffs' motion for sanctions in the amount of $2,718,795.05)

 

Order (Jan. 14, 2014) (revised scheduling order)

 

Motion for summary judgment

Delta Air Lines, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Aug. 31, 2012)

Delta Air Lines, Inc.’s Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (Aug. 31, 2012)
Delta Air Lines, Inc.’s Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (Aug. 31, 2012)

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Delta's Motion for Summary Judgment and Air Tran's Motion for Summary Judgment (Sept. 11, 2015) (filed under seal)

Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc.’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 2, 2015)

Defendants’ Joint Response to Plaintiffs’ Statement of Additional Material Facts (Oct. 2, 2015)

Defendant Airtran Airways, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Aug. 31, 2012)

Memorandum of Airtran Airways, Inc. in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (Aug. 31, 2012)
Statement of Undisputed Facts of Defendant Airtran Airways, Inc. (Aug. 31, 2012)

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Delta's Motion for Summary Judgment and Air Tran's Motion for Summary Judgment (Sept. 11, 2015) (filed under seal)

Reply of Airtran Airways, Inc. in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 2, 2015)

Defendants’ Joint Response to Plaintiffs’ Statement of Additional Material Facts (Oct. 2, 2015)

Plaintiffs' Surreply to Delta's Motion for Summary Judgment and Air Tran's Motion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 16, 2015) (filed under seal)

Sur-Surreply of Airtran Airways, Inc. in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 30, 2015)

Oral argument (Oct. 30, 2015)

 

Daubert motions

Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Eric Gaier (Oct. 23, 2015) (AirTran economist)

Airtran’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Eric Gaier (Nov. 24, 2015)

Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Eric Gaier (Dec. 18, 2015)

Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Daniel M. Kasper (Oct. 23, 2015) (Delta economist)

Memorandum of Delta Air Lines, Inc. in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Daniel M. Kasper (Nov. 24, 2015)

Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Further Support of Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Daniel Kasper (Dec. 18, 2015)

Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Marius Schwartz (Oct. 23, 2015) (AirTran economist on class certification)

Airtran’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Marius Schwartz (Nov. 24, 2015)

Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Marius Schwartz (Dec. 18, 2015)

Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Darin N. Lee (Nov. 10, 2015)

Memorandum of Delta Air Lines, Inc. in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Darin N. Lee (Dec. 4, 2015)

Plaintiff's Daubert Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Dennis W. Carlton (Nov. 10, 2015)

Memornadum in Support (filed under seal)

Memorandum of Delta Air Lines, Inc. in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Dennis Carlton (Dec. 4, 2015)

Plaintiff's Daubert Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Andrew Dick (Nov. 10, 2015) (filed under seal)

Airtran’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Andrew Dick (Dec. 4, 2015)

Defendants’ Consolidated Motion to Exclude The Merits Testimony of Dr. Hal Singer (Nov. 6, 2015)

Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of their Consolidated Motion to Exclude the Merits Testimony of Dr. Hal Singer (Nov. 6, 2015)

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Consolidated Motion to Strike Merits Testimony of Dr. Hal Singer (Nov. 24, 2015)

Defendants’ Consolidated Reply Brief in Support of Motions to Exclude Class Certification Testimony of Hal Singer (Dec. 18, 2015)

Aftermarket Automotive Lighting Products
(private action 2009)

In re Aftermarket Automotive Lighting Products Antitrust Litig., MDL 2007 (J.P.M.L. Feb. 10, 2009)

Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Mar. 17, 2009)

Chocolate
(private action 2008)

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Transfer order, In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig., No. MDL 1935 (J.P.M.L. Apr. 7, 2008)

Middle District of Pennsylvania

Docket sheet (No. 1:08-MDL-1935) (downloaded July 16, 2016)

Case Management Order No. 1 (Apr. 15, 2008)

Case Management Order No. 2 re: Attorney Master Service List (Apr. 22, 2008)

Case Management Order No. 3 re: Initial Case Management Conference (Apr. 23, 2008)

Case Management Order No. 4: Initial Scheduling & Procedural Order (May 30, 2008)

Case Management Order No. 5 Order Appointing Interim Lead And Local Counsel (July 14, 2008)

Class Action Consolidated Complaint (Aug 13, 2008)

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Aug. 13,, 2008)

Individual Plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Complaint (Aug. 13, 2008)

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Aug. 13, 2008)

Consolidated Class Complaint of Indirect Purchasers for Resale (Aug. 14, 2008)

Motion to dismiss

Defendants Cadbury PLC, Cadbury Holdings Ltd., and Cadbury Adams Canada Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint, Individual Plaintiffs’ Amended Consolidated Complaint, Indirect End Users’ Consolidated Complaint, and Indirect Purchasers For Resale’s Consolidated Complaint (Sept. 29, 2008) (Dkt. No. 464)

Memorandum in Further Support of the Motion By Defendants Cadbury PLC, Cadbury Holdings Ltd. and Cadbury Adams Canada Inc. to Dismiss Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint, Indirect End Users’ Consolidated Complaint, Indirect Purchasers for Resale’s Consolidated Complaint and Individual Plaintiffs’ Amended Consolidated Complaint (Sept. 29, 2008)

NB: The other defendants also filed motions to dismiss on substantive grounds.

Memorandum of Law In Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (1) Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint and (2) Individual Plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Complaint (Nov. 13, 2008)

Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Indirect End Users’ Consolidated Amended Complaint and Indirect Purchaser For Resale’s Consolidated Amended Complaint (Nov 13, 2008)

Memorandum in Support of Indirect Purchasers for Resale's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Class Complaint of Indirect Purchasers for Resale (Nov. 13, 2008)

Reply Memorandum in Further Support of the Motion by Defendants Cadbury PLC, Cadbury Holdings Ltd. and Cadbury Adams Canada Inc. to Dismiss Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint, Indirect End Users’ Consolidated Complaint, Indirect Purchasers for Resale’s Consolidated Complaint and Individual Plaintiffs’ Amended Consolidated Complaint (Dec. 4, 2008)

Defendants Cadbury Holdings Ltd. and Cadbury Plc’s Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Sept. 29, 2008) (Dkt. No. 466)

Memorandum in Support of Motion by Defendants Cadbury PLC and Cadbury Holdings Ltd. to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Sept. 29, 2008)

Note: Other non-U.S. defendants also filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to the Cadbury Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Nov. 13, 2008)

Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Motion by Defendants Cadbury PLC and Cadbury Holdings Ltd. to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Dec. 4, 2008)

Memorandum Opinion (Mar. 4, 2009) (addressing all motions to dismiss)

Memorandum Opinion (Apr. 8, 2009) (granting defendants' motion to certify an interlocutory appeal and denying Cadbury Adams Canada's motion for reconsideration as moot)

 

Case Management Order No. 6 (Nov. 5, 2008)

Case Management Order No. 6A (Nov. 10, 2008)

Case Management Order No. 6B (Dec. 19, 2008)

Case Management Order No. 7 Protective Order (Dec. 19, 2008)

Case Management Order No. 8 Re: Preservation and Production of Documents and Electronically Stored Information (Jan. 27, 2009)

Stipulation
Exception

Case Management Order No. 9 Re: Jurisdictional Discovery (Mar. 4, 2009)

Case Management Order No. 10 Re: Filing Procedures for the Plaintiff Groups (Mar. 5, 2009)

Memorandum Opinion (Aug. 11, 2009) (addressing motions to dismiss after jurisdictional discovery)

Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (Aug. 26, 2009) (by indirect end users)

Amended Consolidated Class Complaint of Indirect Purchasers for Resale (Aug. 26, 2009)

Case Management Order No. 11 Re: Class Certification and Merits Discovery (Sept. 30, 2009)

Case Management Order No. 12 Re: Revised Schedule for Class Certification and Merits Discovery (Apr. 5, 2010)

Case Management Order No. 13 Re: Review, Treatment and Logging of Records Withheld under Claim of Privilege (July 26, 2010) (Stipulation)

Case Management Order No. 14 Re: Revised Schedule for Fact Discovery and Class Certification (July 28, 2010)

Third Consolidated Amended Complaint (Oct. 14, 2010) (by indirect end users)

Fourth Consolidated amended Complaint (Nov. 18, 2010) (by indirect end users)

 

Direct purchaser class motion for class certification

Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (May 27, 2011) (Dkt. No. 995)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (May 27, 2011)

Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Aug. 12, 2011)

Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Oct. 21, 2011)

Memorandum Opinion (Dec. 7, 2012) (granting class certification to direct purchaser class)

 

Daubert motion to exclude testimony of Christopher Vellturo

Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Testimony and Reports of Dr. Christopher A. Vellturo (Nov. 5, 2012)

All briefs filed under seal

Memorandum (May 10, 2013)

 

Indirect purchaser for resale motion for class certification

Indirect Purchaser for Resale Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (May 1, 2013)

 

Motions for summary judgment

Cadbury Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (May 31, 2013)

Memorandum of Law in Support of the Cadbury Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (May 31, 2013)

Other briefs filed under seal

Nestlé U.S.A., Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (May 31, 2013)

All briefs were filed under seal

Motion by Defendants The Hershey Company and Hershey Canada Inc. for Summary Judgment as to the Direct Purchaser Class (May 31, 2013)

All briefs were filed under seal

Memorandum, In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig., No. 1:08-MDL-1935 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2014) (granting summary judgment)

Order (Feb. 26, 2014)

Third Circuit

In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig., Nos. 14-2790 through 14-2795 (3d Cir. Sept. 15, 2015) (affirming summary judgment for the defendants) (reported as 801 F.3d 383)

Rambus v. Micron
(private action 2004)

Complaint, Rambus Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc., No. CGC 04-431105 (Sup. Ct. San Francisco Cty. filed May 5, 2004) (seeking $4 billion in direct damages before trebling)

Rambus Inc., Press Release, RAMBUS files anti-trust lawsuit: Hynix Semiconductor, Infineon Technologies, Micron Technology, Siemens AG cited as defendants (May 5, 2004)

± Docket sheet

Transcript (Sept. 20, 2011) (closing arguments)
Jury Instructions
Minutes of court proceeding (Nov. 16, 2011) (jury reaches verdict)
Verdict Form (Nov. 16, 2011) (verdict for defendants—9-3 vote after more than eight weeks of deliberations)

Press releases

± Micron Technology, Inc., Press Release, Micron Prevails in California Antitrust Trial Against Rambus (Nov. 16, 2011)

± Rambus Inc., Press Release, Decision Reached in Rambus Price Fixing Case Against Hynix and Micron (Nov.16, 2011)

Commentary

± Alison Frankel, How the 'ghost riders' theory won Rambus trial, Thomson Reuters News & Insight (Nov. 17, 2011)

± Don Clark, Rambus Loses Antitrust Case, WSJ.com Technology (Nov. 17, 2011)

± Joe Palazzolo, Rambus Deliberations: The ‘Very, Very far End of the Bell Curve’, WSJ Law Blog (Nov. 21, 2011)

± Joe Palazzolo, Rambus Loses, Jurors Let Loose after Five Months, WSJ Law Blog (Nov. 16, 2011)

± Dan Levine &Noel Randewich, Rambus loses antitrust lawsuit, shares plunge, Reuters.com (Nov. 16, 2011)

Samsung settlement
(settled in January. 2010, agreeing to pay Rambus $900 million over five years)

Rambus Inc., Press Release, Samsung and Rambus Sign Comprehensive Agreement (Jan. 19, 2010)

Private Equity
(private action 2007)

Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Antitrust Laws, Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, No. 1:07-cv-12388-EFH (D. Mass. filed Oct. 10, 2012) (redacted) (original complaint filed Dec. 28, 2007)

Docket sheet (downloaded Oct. 17, 2012)

Motion to Intervene and to Unseal Fifth Amended Complaint and Associated Exhibits (Aug. 13, 2012) (by The New York Times)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene and to Unseal Fifth Amended Complaint and Associated Exhibits (Aug. 13, 2012)

Defendants’ Joint Opposition to The New York Times’ Motion to Intervene and Unseal the Fifth Amended Complaint and Associated Exhibits (Aug. 27, 2012)

Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene and to Unseal Fifth Amended Complaint and Associated Exhibits (Sept. 10, 2012)

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Joint Opposition to The New York Times’ Motion to Intervene and Unseal The Fifth Amended Complaint and Associated Exhibits (Sept. 10, 2012)

Defendants’ Sur-Reply to The New York Times’ Motion to Intervene and Unseal the Fifth Amended Complaint and its Associated Exhibits (Sept. 12, 2012)

Memorandum of New York Times Company in Further Support of Motion to Intervene and Unseal (Oct. 9, 2012)

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Memorandum in Further Opposition to The New York Times’ Motion to Intervene and Unseal the Fifth Amended Complaint (Oct. 9, 2012)

Order (Oct. 10, 2012) ("The Defendants should file their newly redacted version of the Fifth Amended Complaint on the Court’s public docket upon receipt of this Order.")

Memorandum (Oct. 15, 2012)

Vitaimin C
(private action ____)

MDL Panel

In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1738 (J.P.M.L. Feb. 14, 2006)

Consent of transferee court (Feb. 6, 2006)

E.D.N.Y.

First Amended Class Action Complaint, Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharm. Co., No. I :05-CV-00453(DGT)(JO) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2007)

Second Amended Class Action Complaint, Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharm. Co., No. I :05-CV-00453(DGT)(JO) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2007)

 

 

Special Verdict Form, In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig. (Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharm. Co.), No. 06-MD-1738 (BMC) (JO) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2013)

Judgment (Mar. 14, 2013)

 

Defendants' Notice of Motion and Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (Apr. 11, 2013)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law to Reduce Damages by $7.5 Million (before Trebling) Due to Speculation, Guess and Surmise as to Co-Conspirator Sales (Apr. 11, 2013)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (May 10, 2013)

 

North China Pharmaceutical Group Corp.’s Notice of Motion and Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) (Apr. 11, 2013)

Memorandum of Law in Support of North China Pharmaceutical Group Corp.'s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Apr. 11, 2013)

 

Memorandum Decision and Order (Nov. 26, 2013) (denying defendant's motion for jmol and granting plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief)

Amended Judgment and Final Decree (Nov. 27, 2013)

 

3. Criminal prosecution

5. Antitrust class actions