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

6. Cconspiracy

 

8. Other Horizontal

 

 

7. Unreasonableness

 

Reading and class notes
Significant precedents
Chicago Board of Trade
National Society of Professional Engineers
ASCAP/BMI
NCAA
Indiana Federation of Dentists
Superior Court Trial Lawyers Ass'n
California Dental
FTC v. Actavis
The NCAA "Likeness" Antitrust Litigation
The Ivy League Price-Fixing Case
Reference materials
Case studies

 
Primary Materials
Supplemental Materials

Reading and Class Notes

Reading and class notes

Unit 7 reading

Unit 7 class notes

 

Significant Precedents

 

Chicago Bd. of Trade v. United States, 246 U.S. 231 (1918)

For more materials, see here

 

National Soc'y of Prof'l Eng'rs v. United States, 435 U.S. 679 (1978) (± Oyez)

For more materials, see here

 

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS, 441 U.S. 1 (1979) (± Oyez)

For more materials, see here

 

Arizona v. Maricopa County Med. Soc'y, 457 U.S. 332 (1982) (± Oyez)

 
 

NCAA v. Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 85 (1984) (± Oyez)

For more materials, see here

 

FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986) (± Oyez)

For more materials, see here

 

FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Ass'n, 493 U.S. 411 (1990) (± Oyez)

For more materials, see here

 

California Dental Ass'n v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756 (1999) (± Oyez)

For more materials, see here

Chicago Board of Trade

CBOT

Chicago Bd. of Trade v. United States, 246 U.S. 231 (1918)

District court

Petition in Equity, United States v. Chicago Bd. of Trade, Eq. No. 8 (N.D. Ill. filed Feb. 11, 1913) (Blue Book No. 131) (National Archives copy)

Docket sheet

National Archives materials

Answer of All Defendants

United States v. Chicago Bd. of Trade, Eq. 8 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 1915), reprinted in Decrees and Judgments in Federal Anti-Trust Cases, July 2, 1890-January 1, 1918, at 413 (Roger Shale ed., 1918), rev’d, 246 U.S. 231 (1918) (National Archives copy)

Assignement of Errors (Jan. 10, 1916)

Order (Jan. 10, 1916) (re appeal to Supreme Court)

Supreme Court

Transcript of Record (Index)

Brief for Appellants (Mar. 30, 1917)

Brief for the United States (Dec. 12. 1917)

Commentary
 

Peter C. Carstensen, The Content of the Hollow Core of Antitrust: The Board of Trade Case and the Meaning of the Rule of Reason in Restraint of Trade Analysis, 15 Res.in L. & Econ.1 (1992).

Richard O. Zerbe, The Chicago Board of Trade Case, 1918, 5 Res.in L. & Econ. 17 (1983)

Jonathan Lurie, The Chicago Board of Trade, 1859- 1905: The Dynamics of Self-Regulation (1979).

Related cases
 

Complaint, In re Detroit Auto Dealers Ass'n, No. 9189 (F.T.C. issued Dec. 20, 1984)

Initial Decision (July 14, 1987) (dismissing complaint under the nonstatutory labor exemption)

In re Detroit Auto Dealers Ass'n, 111 F.T.C. 417 (1989) (final decision—reversing ALJ and finding a violation of FTC Act § 5)

In re Detroit Auto Dealers Ass'n, 955 F.2d 457 (6th Cir. 1992) (affirming in part and remanding)

In re Detroit Auto Dealers Ass'n, 119 F.T.C. 891 (1995) (modifying order on remand)

National Society of Professional Engineers

 

National Soc'y of Prof'l Eng'rs v. United States, 435 U.S. 679 (1978) (± Oyez)

District court

Complaint, United States v. National Soc'y of Prof'l Eng'rs, No. 2412-72 (D.D.C. Dec. 5, 1972)

United States v. National Soc'y of Prof'l Eng'rs, 389 F. Supp. 1193 (D.D.C. 1974)

Supreme Court

Vacated and remanded, 422 U.S. 1031 (1975)

On remand

On remand, 404 F. Supp. 457 (D.D.C. 1975)

Appeal after remand

Aff'd in part, mod. in part, 555 F.2d 978 (D.C. Cir. 1977)

Supreme Court after remand

Brief for Petitioner (Nov. 13, 1977)

Brief for the United States (Jan. 11, 1978)

Reply Brief for Petitioner (Jan. 13, 1978)

Aff'd, 435 U.S. 679 (1978)

Ancillary material
 

For an interesting application of Rule 11(c) in a hypothetical situation published by the National Society of Professional Engineers in 1969, see ± NSPE Board of Ethical Review, Case No. 69-7: Competitive Bidding-Submission of Project Cost (1969).

Commentary
 

± Richard B. Tyler, Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar: The Professions Are
Subject to the Sherman Act
, 41 Mo. L. Rev. 1 (1976)

ASCAP/BMI

 

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS, 441 U.S. 1 (1979) (± Oyez)

Case history

CBS, Inc. v. ASCAP, 337 F. Supp. 394 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) (denying summary judgment)

400 F. Supp. 737 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) (dismissing complaint after trial),

rev'd, 562 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1977) (finding blanket license was a form of per se illegal price fixing),

rev'd sub nom. Broadcast Music, Inc. v. ASCAP, 441 U.S. 1 (1979),

on remand 607 F.2d 543 (2d Cir. 1979),

and 620 F.2d 930 (2d Cir. 1980)

Selected Supreme Court briefs

Supplemental Memorandum for the United States as Amicus Curiae (Jan. 2, 1979)

Commentary

± Stephen Calkins, Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. (Wayne State University Law School Research Paper No. 07-24, July 30, 2007), final version published in Antitrust Stories 205 (Eleanor M. Fox & Daniel A. Crane eds., 2007)

NCAA

 

NCAA v. Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 85 (1984) (± Oyez)

District court

Board of Regents v. NCAA, 546 F. Supp. 1276 (W.D. Okla. 1982)

Tenth Circuit

aff'd in part, remanded in part, 707 F.2d 1147 (10th Cir. 1983)

Supreme Court

aff'd, 468 U.S. 85 (June 27, 1984) (No. 83-271)

Docket sheet

Joint Appendix (Index)

Brief for Petitioner (Dec. 1, 1983)

Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of,Affirmance (Jan. 17, 1984)

Brief of Respondents (Jan. 15, 1984)

Reply Brief for the Petitioner (Mar. 12, 1984)

On remand

on remand, 601 F. Supp. 307 (W.D. Okla. 1984)

Commentary

± Ira Horowitz, The Reasonableness of Horizontal Restraints: NCAA (1994), in The Antitrust Revolution 202 (John E. Kwoka, Jr. & Lawrence J. White eds., 3d ed. 1999)

Indiana Federation of Dentists

 

FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986) (± Oyez)

Case history

Complaint, In re Indiana Federation of Dentists, 101 F.T.C. 57 (Oct. 18, 1978) (No. 9118)

Initial Decision, In re Indiana Federation of Dentists, 101 F.T.C. 57 (Mar. 3, 1980) (No. 9118)

Opinion, In re Indiana Federation of Dentists, 101 F.T.C. 57 (Feb. 17, 1983)

reconsideration denied, 101 F.T.C. 718 (Apr. 28, 1983),

± order vacated, 745 F.2d 1124 (7th Cir. 1984),

rev'd, 476 U.S. 447 (1986),

on remand, 804 F.2d 144 (7th Cir. 1986)

Commentary

Related cases
 

Complaint, In re Massachusetts Bd. of Registration in Optometry, 110 F.T.C. 549 (1988)

Initial decision (June 30, 1986)

In re Massachusetts Bd. of Registration in Optometry, 110 F.T.C. 549 (1988) (final decision)

Superior Court Trial Lawyers Ass'n

FTC
 

 

   

 

Supreme Court

FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Ass'n, 493 U.S. 411 (1990) (± Oyez)

Brief for the Federal Trade Commission (June 22, 1989)

Brief for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association (Aug. 1, 1989)

Brief for the Individual Respondents (Aug. 1, 1989)

Reply Brief for the Fedeeral Trade Commission (Aug. 31, 1989)

California Dental

FTC
 

Complaint, In re California Dental Ass'n, 121 F.T.C. 190 (July 9, 1993) (No. 9259),

Initial Decision, In re California Dental Ass'n, 121 F.T.C. 190 (Mar 25, 1996) (No. 9259)

Opinion, In re California Dental Ass'n, 121 F.T.C. 190 (Mar 25, 1996) (No. 9259),

Dissent (Comm'r Azcuenaga)

Concurrence in part, dissent in part (Comm'r Roscue B. Starek)

Final order

Ninth Circuit
 

128 F.3d 720 (9th Cir. 1997) (enforcing FTC order)

Supreme Court

California Dental Ass'n v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756 (1999) (No. 97-1625) (vacating FTC order and remanding) (± Oyez)

Petition for Writ of Certorari

Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Apr. 3, 1998)

Reply Brief in Support of Petition(July 1, 1998)

Merits

Brief of Petitioner California Dental Association (Nov. 10, 1998)

Brief for the National Collegiate Athletic Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of Reversal

Brief for the Respondent (Dec. 11, 1998)

Brief of the States Arizonia, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West virginia, Wisconsin and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent (Dec. 8, 1998)

Reply Brief of Petitioner California Dental Association (Dec. 29, 1998)

On remand to Ninth Circuit
 

± California Dental Ass'n v. FTC, 224 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2000)

On remand to the FTC
 

Order Returning Matter to Adjudication and Dismissing Complaint, In re California Dental Ass'n, No. 9259 (F.T.C. Feb. 15, 2001)

Statement of Chairman Robert Pitofsky and Commissioners Sheila F. Anthony and Mozelle W. Thompson

Commentary
   

FTC v. Actavis, Inc.

District court
 

Central District of California

Complaint, FTC v. Watson Pharms., No. 1 :09-cv-955-TWT (C.D. Cal. filed Jan. 29, 2009)

Docket sheet (downloaded Apr. 9, 2016)
Transferred from the Central District of California on Apr. 10, 2009

First Amended Complaint, FTC v. Watson Pharms., No. 1 :09-cv-955-TWT (C.D. Cal. filed Jan. 29, 2009)

Order Transferring Cases, FTC v. Watson Pharms., No. 1 :09-cv-955-TWT (C.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2009) (granting FTC and private plaintiffs' motion to transfer case to the Northern District of Georgia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a))

Northern District of Georgia

Second Amended Complaint, FTC v. Watson Pharms., No. 1:09-cv-00955-TWT (N.D. Ga. filed May 28, 2009)

Order, In re Androgel Antitrust Litig. (No. II), No. 1:09-CV-955-TWT, 2014 WL 1600331 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 22, 2010) (granting defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of the FTC and the Indirect Purchasers and granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the claims of the Direct Purchers).

Docket sheet (downloaded Apr. 9, 2016)

Federal Trade Commission’s Motion for Entry of Judgment, , FTC v. Watson Pharms., No. 1 :09-cv-955-TWT (N.D. Ga. Apr. 16, 2010)

Judgment, FTC v. Watson Pharms., No. 1 :09-cv-955-TWT (N.D. Ga. Apr. 21, 2010) (granting motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 58)

Eleventh Circuit
 

FTC. v. Watson Pharms., Inc., No. 10-12729 (11th Cir. Apr 25, 2012) (affirming dismissal of district court) (reported at 677 F.3d 1298)

Supreme Court

FTC v. Actavis, Inc., No. 12-416 (June 17, 2013) (reported at 133 S. Ct. 2223)

Docket sheet (downloaded Dec. 29, 2014)

Brief for Respondent Actavis, Inc. (f/k/a Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) (Feb. 21, 2013)

rev'd and remanded, FTC v. Actavis, Inc., No. 12-416 (June 17, 2013) (reported at 133 S. Ct. 2223)

On remand to the Eleventh Circuit
 

FTC v. Watson Pharms., Inc., No. 10-12729 (11th Cir. Sept. 9, 2013) (reported at 529 F..App'x 985)

On remand to the Norhtern District of Georgia
 

Answer, FTC v. Watson Pharms., No. 1:09-cv-00955-TWT (N.D. Ga. filed Jan. 1, 2014)

Order, FTC v. Watson Pharms., No. 1:09-cv-00955-TWT (N.D. Ga. Jan. 21, 2014) (changing caption to FTC v. Actavis, Inc.)

Opinion and Order, In re Androgel Antitrust Litig. (No. II), No. 1:09-CV-955-TWT (N.D. Ga. Apr. 21, 2014) (denying motions to dismiss) (reported at 2014 WL 1600331)

The NCAA "Likeness" Antitrust Litigation

Complaint

Class Action Complaint, O'Bannon v NCAA, No. 4:09-cv-03329-CW (N.D. Calif. filed July 21, 2009) (alleging that certain media organizations conspired with the NCAA to fix the amount paid to college athletes at zero, with the NCAA requiring athletes to sign away their publicity rights in release forms).

See here for more case materials

District court

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Aug. 8, 2014) (reported at 7 F. Supp. 3d 955)

Permanent Injunction (Aug. 8, 2014)

 

Ninth Circuit

O'Bannon. v. NCAA, No. 14-16601 (9th Cir. Sept. 30, 2015) (reported at 802 F.3d 1049)

Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Oct. 14, 2015)

O'Bannon. v. NCAA, No. 14-16601 (9th Cir. docketed Aug. 21, 2014)

Docket sheet (downloaded Oct. 15, 2015)

Brief for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (Nov. 14, 2014)

Brief for Antitrust Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant (Nov. 21, 2014)

Brief for Law and Economics and Antitrust Scholars As Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant (Nov. 21, 2014)

Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Opposition Brief In Response to National Collegiate Athletic Association’s Opening Appellate Brief (Jan. 1, 2015)

Brief of Twenty-Six Scholars of Antitrust and Sports Law in Support of Appellees, Supporting Affirmance (Jan. 28, 2015)

Reply Brief for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (Feb. 11, 2015)

 

± Oral argument (Mar. 17, 2015)

Motion to Stay Injunction (July 17, 2015)

Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Opposition Brief in Response to National Collegiate Athletic Association’s Motion to Stay Injunction (July 27, 2015)

Reply in Support of Motion to Stay Injunction Pending Decision on Appeal (July 28, 2015)

Order (July 31, 2015) (granting a stay of the district court’s injunction)

Supreme Court

Petition for writ of certiorari

Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Mar. 14, 2016) (by plaintiffs) (No. 15-1167)
Petition for Writ of Certiorari (____, 2016) (by plaintiffs) (No. 15A913)

 
Attorneys' fees
 

 

Commentary
 

± Scott Hemphill, Less Restrictive Alternatives in Antitrust Law (NYU Law & Econ. Working Paper No. 417, Dec. 2015)

The Ivy League Financial Aid Price-Fixing Case

District court

Complaint, United States v. Brown Univ., Civ. A. No. 91-3274 (D. Mass. filed May 21, 1991)

Decision and Order, Civ. A. No. 91-3274 (D. Mass. filed Sept. 2, 1992) (reported as United States v. Brown Univ., 805 F. Supp. 288 (E.D. Pa. 1992).

Stipulation (May 22, 1991) (consent settlement for all defendants except MIT)

Affidavit of Dennis Carlton (Apr. 24, 1992)

Government's Trial Brief (June 22, 1992)

Government's Post-Trial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (July 23, 1992)

MIT's Post-Trial memorandum (July 24, 1992)

MIT's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Appeal

Opinion of the Court, No. 92-1911 (3d Cir. Sept. 17, 1993) (reversing and remanding) (reported as United States v. Brown Univ., 5 F.3d 658 (3d Cir. 1993))

Brief for the Defendant-Appellant Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Dec. 14, 1992)

Brief Amicus Curiae for the Association of Alumni and Alumnae of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Support of Appellant (Dec. 14, 1992)

Brief Amicus Curiae for Twelve Non-Profit Higher Education Associations in Support of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Dec. 14, 1992)

Brief of Amici Curiae The School District of Philadelphia

Brief for Appellee United States of America (Jan. 20, 1993)

MIT settlement
 

Letter to Thane D. Scott, Bingham (counsel to MIT), from Robert E. Litan, Dep. Ass't Att'y General, U.S. Dep't of Justice Antitrust Div., re settlement of litigation with MIT (Dec. 22, 1993).

Commentary
 

± Gustavo E. Bamberger & Dennis W. Carlton, Antitrust and Higher Education: MIT Financial Aid (1993), in The Antitrust Revolution 188 (John E. Kwoka, Jr. & Lawrence J. White eds., 4th ed. 2004)

Reference Materials

Significant lower court precedents

California ex rel. Harris v. Safeway, Inc., Nos. 08-55671, 08-55708 (9th Cir. July 12, 2011) (en banc) (reported as 651 F.3d 1118)

Opinion (Aug. 17, 2010) (three-judge panel opinion) (reported as 615 F.3d 1171)
Appellees’ Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc (Sept. 30, 2010)
Order (Feb. 11, 2011) (granting rehearing en banc and withdrawing three-judge panel opinion) (reported as 633 F.3d 1210)

± Polygram Holding Inc. v. FTC, 416 F.3d 29 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

Limitation to commercial restraints

Agnew v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, No. 11_3066 (7th Cir. June 18, 2012) (reported as 683 F.3d 328) (± oral argument)

"Quick look"

± Geoffrey D. Oliver, Of Tenors, Real Estate Brokers and Golf Clubs: A Quick Look at Truncated Rule of Reason Analysis, Antitrust Source, Spring 2010.

Rule of reason

± C. Scott Hemphill, Less Restrictive Alternatives in Antitrust Law (NYU Law & Econ. Working Paper No. 417, Dec. 2015)

± Gregory J. Werden, Antitrust's Rule of Reason: Only Competition Matters (Mar. 1, 2013).

± Andrew I. Gavil, Moving Beyond Caricature and Characterization: The Modern Rule of Reason in Practice, 85 S. Calif. L. Rev. 733 (2012).

± Gabriel A. Feldman, The Misuse of the Less Restrictive Alternative Inquiry in Rule of Reason Analysis, 58 Am.. U. L. Rev. .561 (2009).

EU law and policy

European Comm'n, Guidelines on the Applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to Horizontal Co-Operation Agreements, 2011 O.J. (C 11) 1 (effective Dec. 2010).

Corrigendum to Communication from the Commission, Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to horizontal co-operation agreements, 2011 (C 33) 8.

Commentary:

± Florian Wagner-von Papp, Information Exchange Agreements (Mar. 4, 2012).

Case Studies

Meyer v. Kalanick (Uber price fixing) (private 2015)
Teladoc (private 2015)
NCAA Grant-in-Aid Cap (private 2014)
Sulfuric Acid
Blue Cross of Michigan (DOJ 2010)
Credit card "merchant restraints" case (DOJ 2010)
NCAA Likeness (private 2009)
Realcomp II (FTC 2006)
Amex (DOJ 2010)
North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners (FTC 2010)
Realcomp II (FTC 2006)

1-800-CONTACTS
(FTC 2016)

Complaint, In re 1-800-Contacts, Inc., No. 9372 (F.T.C. filed Aug. 8, 2016) (FTC news release)

Meyer v. Kalanick (Uber price fixing)
(private 2015)

Complaint, Meyer v. Kalanick, No. 1:15 Civ. 9796 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2015)

Notice of Motion (Jan. 15, 2016) (defendant's motion to dismiss)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Travis Kalanick’s Motion to Dismiss (Jan. 15, 2016)

First Amended Complaint (Jan. 29, 2016)

Notice of Motion (Feb. 8, 2016) (defendant's motion to dismiss amended complaint)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Travis Kalanick’s Motion to Dismiss (Feb. 8, 2016)

Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Travis Kalanick’s Motion to Dismiss (Feb. 18, 2016)

Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Travis Kalanick’s Motion to Dismiss (Feb. 25, 2016)

Opinion and Order (Mar. 31, 2016) (denying motion to dismiss)

Notice of Motion (Apr. 14, 2016) (defendant's motion for partial reconsideration)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Travis Kalanick’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Holding Regarding Plaintiff’s Class Action Waiver (Apr. 14, 2016)

Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Travis Kalanick’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court’s March 31, 2016 Opinion and Order (Apr. 21, 2016)

Opinion and Order (May 9, 2016) (denying motion for partial reconsideration)

Civil Case Management Plan (Apr. 11, 2016) (setting trial for November 1, 2016)

Answer of Defendant Travis Kalanick to the First Amended Complaint (Apr. 14, 2016)

Notice of Motion (May 20, 2016) (defendant's motion to join Uber as a necessary party-defendant)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Travis Kalanick’s Expedited Motion for Joinder of Uber Technologies, Inc. as a Necessary Party (May 20, 2016)

Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to (1) Defendant Travis Kalanick’s Expedited Motion for Joinder of Uber Technologies, Inc. as a Necessary Party, and (2) Proposed Intervenor Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Intervene for the Limited Purpose of Compelling Arbitration (June 6, 2016)

Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Travis Kalanick’s Expedited Motion for Joinder of Uber Technologies, Inc. as a Necessary Party (June 9, 2016)

Notice of Motion (May 24, 2016) (by Uber to intervene)

Proposed Intervenor Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene for the Limited Purpose of Compelling Arbitration (May 24, 2016)

Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to (1) Defendant Travis Kalanick’s Expedited Motion for Joinder of Uber Technologies, Inc. as a Necessary Party, and (2) Proposed Intervenor Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Intervene for the Limited Purpose of Compelling Arbitration (June 6, 2016)

Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Intervene for the Limited Purpose of Compelling Arbitration (June 9, 2016)

Memorandum Order (June 19, 2016) (granting Kalanick's motion to join Uber as a party-defendant)

Notice of Motion (June 7, 2016) (defendant Kalanick's motion to compel arbitration)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Travis Kalanick’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (June 7, 2016)

 

Protective Order (June 16, 2016)

Teladoc
(private 2015)

Complaint, Teladoc, Inc. v. Texas Med. Bd., No. 1:15-cv-00343-RP (W.D. Tex. filed Apr. 29, 2015)

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 13, 2016)

Plaintiffs’ Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction before June 3, 2015 and Brief in Support (Apr. 29, 2015)

Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (May 15, 2015)

Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction before June 3, 2015 (May 20, 2015)

Order (May 29,2015) (granting preliminary injunction)

Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Entry of Bond Amount (June 17, 2015)

Order (June 17, 2015) (granting bond motion)

Amended Complaint (July 6, 2015)

Joint Stipulation and Dismissal of Certain Defendants (July 22, 2015)

Order (July 23, 2015) (granting motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims against the TMB and the TMB members in their individual capacities)

Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (July 30, 2015)

Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss (July 30, 2015)

Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Aug. 25, 2015)

Defendants’ Reply in Support of Amended Motion to Dismiss (Sept. 25, 2015)

Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Response to Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss (Oct. 23, 2015)

Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Response (Oct. 27, 2015)

Order (Dec. 14, 2015) (denying motion to dismiss)

Notice of Appeal (Jan. 8, 2016) (on the gorunds of state action immunity)

Order Pending All Proceedings Pending Appeal (Jan. 14, 2016)

Actavis "product hopping" case
(New York 2014)

Complaint, New York v. Actavis plc, No. 1:14-cv-07473 (S.D.N.Y. filed ___) (redacted version filed Sept. 19, 2014)

NCAA Grant-in-Aid Cap
(private 2014)

Alston

Complaint, Alston v. NCAA, No. 3:14-cv-01011 (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 5, 2014)

Docket sheet (downloaded Aug. 11, 2014)

Related Case Order (Mar. 17, 2014) (referring case to Judge Claudia Wilken)

Jenkins

Complaint and Jury Demand—Class Action Seeking Injunction and Individual Damages, Jenkins v. NCAA, No. 3:33-av-00001 (D.N.J. filed Mar. 17, 2014)

MDL

Motion of Plaintiffs for Transfer of Actions to the Northern District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for Coordinated or Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings (J.P.M.L. filed Mar. 19, 2014)

Brief in Support of Motion of Plaintiff for Transfer of Actions to t=The Northern District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for Coordinated or Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings (Mar. 19, 2014)

Response of the NCAA to the Statements of Kendall Gregory-Mcghee and the Minnesota Plaintiffs

Transfer Order, In re National Collegiate Athletic Association Athletic Grant-In-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2541 (J.P.M.L. June 4, 2014) (ordering pretrial consolidation before Judge Claudia Wilken in the Northern District of California)

N.D. Cal.

Consolidated Amended Complaint, In re National Collegiate Athletic Association Athletic Grant in Aid Cap Antitrust Litig., MDL Cae No. 14-md-2541 CW (N.D. Cal. filed July 11, 2014) (relates to all actions except Jenkins v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n.)

Docket sheet (downloaded Aug. 11, 2014)

Sulfuric Acid

In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig., Nos. 12-1109, 12-1224 (7th Cir. Dec. 27, 2012) (reported at 703 F.3d 1004)

District court:

Memorandum Opinion and Order, In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig., 1:03-cv-04576 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2010)

Seventh Circuit:

Docket sheet (dlownloaded Dec. 24, 2014)

Brief and Required Short Appendix of Plaintiffs-Appellants In 12-1109 (Mar. 30, 2012)

Combined Brief of Defendants-Appellees in 12-1109 and Defendants-Cross-Appellants in 12-1224 (Apr. 30, 2012)

Combined Response of Plaintiffs-Appellees in 12-1224 and Reply of Plaintiffs-Appellants in 12-1109 (May 30, 2012)

± Oral argument (Sept. 21, 2012)

Opinion (Dec. 27, 2012)

Blue Cross of Michigan
(DOJ 2010)
(MFN challenge)

Complaint, United States v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., No.2:10-cv-14155-DPH-MKM (E.D. Mich. filed Oct. 18, 2010)

Docket sheet (downloaded May 31, 2012)
± DOJ web page

Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint with Prejudice (Dec. 17, 2010)

Plaintiff United States of America’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint with Prejudice (Jan. 20, 2012)

Plaintiff State of Michigan's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint with Prejudice (Jan. 20, 2011)

Reply Brief in Support of Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan’s Motion to Dismiss (Feb. 11, 2011)

Minute Order (July 7, 2011) (denying motion to dismiss)

Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Order Regarding Various Motions (Aug. 12, 2011)

Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan’s Notice of Appeal (Aug. 5, 2011) (appealing denial of motion to dismiss with respect to state action defense)

Order (6th Cir. Feb. 23, 2012) (denying appeal for lack of finality)

 

Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan’s Answer and Defenses to the Complaint (Sept. 12, 2011)

 

Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan’s Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (Oct. 21, 2011)

Exhibit 1 - Interrogatories and Responses

Plaintiff the United States’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel a Response to its First Two Interrogatories (Nov. 4, 2011)

Reply Brief in Support of Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan's Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (Nov. 17, 2011)

Joint Statement of Resolved and Unresolved Issues Relating to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan’s Motion to Compel a Response to Interrogatories (Nov. 28, 2011)

Order Denying BCBS’s Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories [80] and Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatory [100] (May 30, 2012)

Case-Management Order (May 29, 2012)

Credit card "merchant restraints" case—Amex, MasterCard, and Visa
(DOJ 2010)

See case entry in Non-Price Vertical Restraints

North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners
(FTC 2010)

Complaint, In re North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners, Dkt. No. 9343 (F.T.C. filed June 17, 2010) (± news release).

± FTC docket sheet

Proceedings before the administrative law judge

Motion to Dismiss (Nov. 3, 2010)

Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Corrected) (Nov. 5, 2010)

Complaint Counsel's Memorandum in Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Nov. 30, 2010)

Respondent's Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Dec. 20, 2010)

Opinion, North Carolina State Bd. of Dental Exam'rs, No. 9343 (F.T.C. Feb. 3, 2011) (reported at 151 F.T.C. 607, 2011 WL 3568990) (FTC news release—issued Feb. 8, 2011)

Order Denying Respondent's Motion to dismiss, Granting Complaint Counsel's Motion for Partial summary Judgement, Denying Respondent's Motion to Disqualify the Commission, and Granting Respondent's Motion for Leave to File Limited Surreply Brief (Feb. 3, 2011)

Complaint Counsel's Motion for Partial Summary Decision, Memorandum of Law in Support, and Separate Statement of Material Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue (Nov. 8, 2010)

Respondent's Memorandum In Opposition To Complaint Counsel's Motion For Partial Summary Decision (Corrected) (Dec. 13, 2010).

Respondent's Separate Statement of Material Facts as to Which There Are and Are Not Genuine Issues (Dec. 17, 2010).

Complaint Counsel's Supplemental Filing in Reply to Respondent's Corrected Memorandum in Opposition to Complaint Counsel's Motion for Partial Summary Decision (Dec. 21, 2010)

Response by Counsel for Respondent to Complaint Counsel's Supplemental Filing in Reply to Respondent's Corrected Memorandum in Opposition to Complaint Counsel's Motion for Partial Summary Decision (The "Supplemental Filing") (Dec. 22, 2010)

Complaint Counsel’s Memorandum in Reply to Respondent’s Corrected Memorandum in Opposition to Complaint Counsel’s Motion for Partial Summary Decision (Dec. 28, 2010)

Opinion, North Carolina State Bd. of Dental Exam'rs, No. 9343 (F.T.C. Feb. 3, 2011) (reported at 151 F.T.C. 607, 2011 WL 3568990) (FTC news release—issued Feb. 8, 2011)

Order Denying Respondent's Motion to dismiss, Granting Complaint Counsel's Motion for Partial summary Judgement, Denying Respondent's Motion to Disqualify the Commission, and Granting Respondent's Motion for Leave to File Limited Surreply Brief (Feb. 3, 2011)

 

Complaint Counsel’s Pretrial Brief (Jan. 19, 2011).
Respondent's Pretrial Brief (Jan. 27, 2011)

Respondent's Final Stipulations of Law, Facts, and Authenticity (Feb. 8, 2011)

Expedited Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending the Outcome of a Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Feb. 11, 2011) (see below)

Complaint Counsel’s Opposition to Respondent’s Fourth Motion to Stay the Evidentiary Hearing (Feb. 11, 2011)

Order Denying Respondent’s Expedited Motion for Stay of Proceedings (Feb. 15, 2011)

Complaint Counsel's Post Trial Brief and [Proposed) Order (Apr. 25, 2011)
Complaint Counsel's Post Trial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Apr. 25, 2011)
Respondent's Post-Trial Brief (Apr. 25, 2011)

Complaint Counsel's Reply to Respondent's Post-Trial Brief (May 5, 2010)
Complaint Counsel's Reply to Respondent's Post-Trial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (May 5, 2010)
Respondent's Reply to Complaint Counsel's Post-Trial Brief (May 5, 2010)
Respondent's Replies to Complaint Counsel's Proposed Findings of Fact (May 5, 2011)

Respondent’s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, As Amended (May 5, 2011)

Initial Decision (July 14, 2011) (D. Michael Chappell, CALJ)

Respondent’s Notice of Appeal (July 28, 2011)

Appeal to the full Commission

Respondent’s Appeal Brief (Aug. 25, 2011)

Complaint Counsel's Answering Brief to Respondent's Appeal Brief (Oct. 4, 2011)

Respondent’s Reply Brief (Oct. 14, 2011)

Opinion of the Commission (Dec. 7, 2011) (± FTC news release)

Final Order (Dec. 7, 2011)

Respondent's Application for Stay of Order Pending Review by U.S. Court of Appeals (Jan. 13, 2012)

Complaint Counsel’s Opposition to Respondent’s Application for a Stay of Order (Jan. 23, 2012)

Respondent’s Reply to Complaint Counsel’s Opposition to Respondent’s Application for a Stay (Jan. 27, 2012)

Order on Respondent’s Application for Stay of Order Pending Review by U.S. Court of Appeals (Feb. 10, 2012)

Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Ramirez (Feb. 10, 2012)

Appeal of the FTC decision and order to the Fourth Circuit

Docket sheet (No. 12–1172) (downloaded Mar. 10, 2013)

Petition for Review of the Commission’s Final Order (Feb. 10, 2012)

Petitioner’s Page Proof Opening Brief (May 10, 2012)

Amici Curiae Brief of American Dental Association, American Osteopathic Association, American Veterinary Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, American Academy of Periodontology, American Association of Orthodontists, American Association of Dental Boards, and Federation of State Medical Boards in Support of the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners Seeking Reversal (May 16, 2012)

Brief for Amici Curiae, the American Medical Association and the Medical Associations for the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia Supporting Petitioner and Reversal (May 17, 2012)

Brief of Amici Curiae the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy and the North Carolina Board of Pharmacy in Support of Petitioner and Reversal (May 17, 2012)

Brief of Respondent Federal Trade Commission (June 27, 2012)

Brief of American Antitrust Institute as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent and Affirmance (

Petitioner’s Reply Brief (July 19, 2012)

Oral argument (Dec. 5, 2012)

Opinion (May 31, 2013)

Judgment (May 31, 2013)

Petition for Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc (July 15, 2013)

Stay of Mandate under Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(1) (July 15, 2013)

Order (July 30, 2013) (denying motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc)

Mandate (Sept. 5, 2013)

± FTC web page

 

Supreme Court

North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, No. 13-534 (U.S. docketed Oct. 29, 2013)

Docket sheet (downloaded Sept. 4, 2014)

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (Oct. 25, 2013)

Petition granted (Mar. 3, 2014)

Brief for Petitioner (May 23, 2014)

Brief for Amicus Curiae National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying in Support of Petitioner (May 29, 2014)

Brief for Amicus Curiae National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying in Support of Petitioner (May 29, 2014)

Brief of the American Dental Association, American Medical Association, Et Al. As Amici Curiae In Support of Petitioner (May 30, 2014)

Brief of California Optometric Association As Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (May 30, 2014)

Brief of the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy, Et Al. As Amici Curiae in Support of the Petitioners and Reversal (May 30, 2014)

Brief for the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the Council of State Governments As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner (May 30, 2014)

Brief of the North Carolina State Bar, the North Carolina Board of Law Examiners, the West Virginia State Bar, the Nevada State Bar and the Florida Bar, As Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner (May 30, 2014)

Brief of Amici Curiae State of West Virginia and 21 Other States in Support of Petitioner (May 30, 2014)

Brief for Respondents (July 30, 2014)

Brief of We All Help Patients, Inc. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent (Aug. 5, 2014)

Brief for the Association of Dental Support Organizations as Amicus Curiae In Support of Respondent (Aug. 6, 2014)

Brief for the American Antitrust Institute as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent (Aug. 6, 2014)

Brief of Antitrust Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent (Aug. 6, 2014)

Brief of Amicus Curiae Neil Averitt in Support of Respondent (Aug. 5, 2014)

Brief Amicus Curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation and Cato Institute in Support of Respondent (Aug. 6, 2014)

Brief of Amicus Curiae Public Citizen, Inc., in Support of Respondent (Aug. 6, 2014)

Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars of Public Choice Economics in Support of Respondent (Aug. 6, 2014)

Brief of Legalzoom.Com, Inc., Responsive Law, Fileright LLC, Justanswer LLC, Justia Company, Shake, Inc., and Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent (Aug. 6, 2014)

Reply Brief for Petitioner (Aug. 29, 2014)

Transcript of argument (Oct. 14, 2014)

Opinion (February 25, 2015) (sustaining judgment for the FTC)

District court injunction proceeding

± FTC docket page

Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction, North Carolina State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. FTC, No. 5:11-cv-49-FL (E.D.N.C. filed Feb. 1, 2011)

Exhibit A: Administrative complaint
Exhibit B: Response to the complaint
Exhibit C: Declaration of Alfred P. Carlton. Jr.

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Equitable Relief (Feb. 2, 2011)

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Permanent Injunction, and Exhibits A and B Thereto (Feb. 2, 2011)

Opposition of the Federal Trade Commission to Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Equitable Relief (Feb. 7, 2012)

Exhibit A-D

Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Equitable Relief (Feb. 8, 2012)

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Feb. 9, 2012)

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Feb. 28, 2011)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Feb. 28, 2011)

Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Mar. 24, 2011)

Reply to Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Apr. 7, 2011)

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (May 3, 2011) (reported as North Carolina State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. FTC, 768 F. Supp.2d 818 (E.D.N.C. 2011))

Notice of Appeal (June 27, 2011)

Fourth Circuit

Fourth Circuit docket sheet (No. 11-1679) (downloaded Nov. 26, 2012)

Brief of Appellant North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners (Oct 6, 2011)

Brief of Defendant-Appellee Federal Trade Commission (Nov. 28, 2011)

Reply Brief of Appellant (Dec. 15, 2011)

Oral Argument Notification (Oct. 3, 2012) (calendaring argument for Dec. 5, 2012)

Supplemental Brief of the Federal Trade Commission (Nov. 15, 2012)

Supplemental Brief of Appellant (Nov. 19, 2012)

Order (June 6, 2013) (dismissing appeal as moot)

Judgment (June 7, 2013)

Mandate (July 30, 2013)

O'Bannon v. NCAA
(private 2009)

Class Action Complaint, O'Bannon v NCAA, No. 4:09-cv-03329-CW (N.D. Calif. filed July 21, 2009) (alleging that certain media organizations conspired with the NCAA to fix the amount paid to college athletes at zero, with the NCAA requiring athletes to sign away their publicity rights in release forms).

Docket sheet No. 09-cv-03329 (downloaded Sept. 26, 2014)

See also Keller v. Electronic Arts Inc., No. 4:09-cv-01967-CW

Note: Electronic Arts and Collegiate Licensing reached a $40 million settlement with both the O'Bannon and Keller plaintiffs in 2013. The NCAA reached a separate $20 million settlement with the Keller plaintiffs in June 2015.

Antitrust Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief (June 3, 2014)

Defendant NCAA's Trial Brief (June 5, 2014)

Antitrust Plaintiffs’ Proposed Form of Injunction (June 6, 2014)

Exhibit A: Proposed Order

Alternative [Proposed] Order Granting Injunctive Relief (June 27, 2014)

Plaintiffs’ Opening Post-Trial Brief (July 2, 2014)

Defendant NCAA’s Post-Trial Brief (July 8, 2014)

Plaintiffs’ Post-Trial Reply Brief (July 10, 2014)

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Aug. 8, 2014)

Permanent Injunction (Aug. 8, 2014)

Defendant NCAA's Administrative Motion for Clarification of Timing of Injunction (Aug. 11, 2014)

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant NCAA's Administrative Motion for Clarification of Timing for Injunction (Aug. 12, 2014)

Joint Submission Regarding Clarification of Injunction and [Proposed] Order (Aug. 14, 2014)

Notice of Appeal (Aug. 20, 2014)

Attorneys' fees

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Memorandum in Support Thereof (Aug. 22, 2014)

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses and Memorandum in Support Thereof (Oct. 21, 2014) (amended)

Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Limited Discovery on Plaintiffs’ Request for Attorneys’ Fees & Costs (Nov. 3, 2014)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant NCAA's Motion for Limited Discovery on Plaintiffs’ Request for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Nov. 13, 2014)

 

Ninth Circuit

O'Bannon. v. NCAA, No. 14-16601 (9th Cir. docketed Aug. 21, 2014)
(including only selected amicus briefs)

Docket sheet (downloadedAug. 20, 2015)

Brief for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (Nov. 14, 2014)

Brief for Antitrust Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant (Nov. 21, 2014)

Brief for Law and Economics and Antitrust Scholars As Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant (Nov. 21, 2014)

Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Opposition Brief In Response to National Collegiate Athletic Association’s Opening Appellate Brief (Jan. 1, 2015)

Brief of Twenty-Six Scholars of Antitrust and Sports Law in Support of Appellees, Supporting Affirmance (Jan. 28, 2015)

Reply Brief for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (Feb. 11, 2015)

± Oral argument (Mar. 17, 2015)

Motion to Stay Injunction (July 17, 2015)

Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Opposition Brief in Response to National Collegiate Athletic Association’s Motion to Stay Injunction (July 27, 2015)

Reply in Support of Motion to Stay Injunction Pending Decision on Appeal (July 28, 2015)

Order (July 31, 2015) (granting a stay of the district court’s injunction)

 

 

Commentary

± Marc Tracy, N.C.A.A. May Let Top Conferences Play by Own Rules, NYTimes.com, Aug. 5, 2014.

± Sharon Terlep, NCAA Votes to Give Big Conferences More Autonomy, Wall St. J., Aug. 7, 2014.

± Brian Bennett, NCAA board votes to allow autonomy, ESPN.com, Aug. 8, 2014.

Realcomp II
(FTC 2006)

Realcomp II, Ltd. v. FTC, No. 09-4596 (6th Cir. Apr. 6, 2011) (reported at 635 F.3d 815), denying petition for review from In re Realcomp II, Ltd., Dkt. No. 9320 (FTC Oct. 30, 2009).

For litigation papers, see Joint Ventures

 

6. Cconspiracy

8. Other Horizontal