Applied Antitrust Law

Dale Collins
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)

Assignment 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. CBS, 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

Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae (Nov. 27, 1978)

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 Federal 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 Certiorari

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 Arizona, 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 Purchasers).

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 the Petitioner (Jan. 22, 2013)

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

Brief for Respondent Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Feb. 21, 2013)

Brief for Respondents Par/Paddock(Feb. 21, 2013)

Reply Brief for the Petitioner (Mar. 18, 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 Northern 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)

Commentary
 

± Michael A. Carrier, The Rule of Reason in the Post-Actavis World, 2018 Colum. Bus. L. Rev. 26 (2018).

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

McDonald's no-poach case (Turner) (private 2019)
Auntie Anne's no-poach case (private 2018)
McDonald's no-poach case (DeSlandes) (private 2017)
1-800-CONTACTS (FTC 2016)
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)

   
McDonald's no-poach case (Turner)
(private 2019)

Complaint, Turner v. McDonald's USA, LLC, No. 1:19-cv-05524 (N.D. Ill. filed Aug. 15, 2019)

Docket sheet (downloaded July 31, 2020)

Joint Rule 26(F) Initial Status Report (Oct. 10, 2019)

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Oct. 19, 2019)

Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Dismiss (Oct. 19, 2019)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Nov. 15, 2019)

Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss (Dec. 2, 2019)

Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Jan. 8, 2020)

Order (Apr. 24, 2020) (denying motion to dismiss)

Defendants McDonald’s USA, LLC and McDonald’s Corporation’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint (June 5, 2020)

Auntie Anne's no-poach case
(private 2018)

Complaint, Stigar v. Dough Dough, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-00244 (E.D. Wash. filed Aug. 3, 2018)

Docket sheet (downloaded July 30, 2020)

Defendant Auntie Anne’s Franchisor SPV LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Oct. 22, 2018)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Nov. 12, 2018)

Defendant Auntie Anne’s Franchisor SPV LLC’s Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Nov. 26, 2018)

Motion for Expedited Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by the Attorney General of Washington (Mar. 1, 2019)

Defendant Auntie Anne’s Franchisor SPV LLC’s Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae by Washington State Attorney General (Mar. 7, 2019)

Order granting motion to file amicus brief (Mar. 7, 2019)

Amicus Curiae Brief by the Attorney General of Washington (Mar. 11, 2019)

Statement of Interest of the United States of America (Mar. 8, 2019) (corrected version) (Errata)

Stipulated Motion to Dismiss (Apr. 17, 2019)

Order Closing File (Apr. 18, 2019)

McDonald's no-poach case (DeSlandes)
(private 2019)

Class Action Complaint, DeSlandes v. McDonald's USA, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-04857 (N.D. Ill. filed June 28, 2017)

Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 28, 2022)

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Aug. 28, 2017)

Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Aug. 28, 2017)

Exhibit 1. Franchise Disclosure Document

Answer of Defendants McDonald’s USA, LLC, and McDonald’s Corporation (Aug. 28, 2017)

Amended Class Action Complaint (Sept. 18, 2017)

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Oct. 2, 2017)

Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Oct. 2, 2017)

Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (Nov. 10, 2017)

Exhibit A. Consolidated Amended Complaint, In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., No. 1-CV-2509-LHK (N.D. Calif. filed ___)

Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Dec. 11, 2017)

Plaintiff's Sur-Reply in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Feb. 13, 2018) (filed following grant of motion to file)

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Feb. 16, 2018) (filed following grant of motion to file)

Order (June 25, 2018) (granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss) (reported as 2018 WL 3105955)

Defendants McDonald’s USA, LLC, and McDonald’s Corporation's Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Aug. 27, 2018)

Stipulation Regarding Expert Discovery (Mar. 5, 2019)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reassign and Consolidate Related Case and Memorandum in Support Thereof (June 30, 2019) (to reasign and consolidate Turner)

Notification of Docket Entry (Sept. 5, 2019) (reassigning Turner but consolidating only for the purpose of discovery)

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Memorandum of Law in Support (Jan. 15, 2021) (public version)

Expert Witness Report of Peter Cappelli (Jan. 20, 2021) (corrected public version)

Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Peter Cappelli, D. Phil. (Apr. 15, 2021)

Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Peter Cappelli, D. Phil (Apr. 15, 2021)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Peter Cappelli, D. Phil (May 14, 2021) (public version)

Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Peter Cappelli, D. Phil (May 21, 2021)

Expert Witness Report of Hal Singer (Jan. 15, 2021)

Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Hal J. Singer, Ph.D (Apr. 15, 2021)

Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Hal J. Singer, Ph.D. (Apr. 15, 2021)

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Hal J. Singer, Ph.D. (May 14, 2021) (public version)

Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Hal J. Singer, Ph.D. (May 21, 2021)

Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Class Certification (Apr. 15, 2021) [under seal] [Doc. 299]

Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Certification (May 21, 2021)

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Class Certification (June 4, 2021)

Exhibit A. Defendants’ Sur-Reply in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Class Certification (June 4, 2021)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Surreply (June 18, 2021)

Exhibit A. Plaintiffs’ Sur-Sur-Reply Memorandum of LawIIn Support of Class Certification (June 18, 2021)

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File of Supplemental Authority (June 23, 2021) [motion granted June 24, 2021, with leave to file 10-page briefs]

Exhibit. Defendants’ Notice of Supplemental Authority (June 23, 2021)

Defendants’ Brief Regarding the Supreme Court’s NCAA v. Alston Decision (July 9, 2021)

Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief re: NCAA v. Alston (July 9, 2021)

Memorandum Opinion and Order (July 28, 2021)

 

Defendants McDonald’s USA, LLC and McDonald’s Corporation’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative Summary Judgment (Oct. 26, 2021)

Defendants McDonald’s USA, LLC and McDonald’s Corporation’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or In the Alternative Summary Judgment (Oct. 26, 2021)

Exhibit 1. Declaration of Justin McCrary
Exhbiit 2. Declaration of Kevin Murphy

Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on McDonald’s Asserted Justifications (Nov. 16, 2021)

Plaintiffs’ Combined Memorandum of Law in Opposition to McDonald’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and in Support of Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on McDonald’s Asserted Justifications (Nov. 17, 2021)

Defendants McDonald’s USA, LLC and McDonald’s Corporation’s Combined Reply in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on McDonald’s Asserted Justifications (Dec. 7, 2021)

Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Peter Cappelli, D. Phil. (Dec. 7, 2021)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Peter Cappelli, D. Phil. (Dec. 21, 2021)

Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Peter Cappelli, D. Phil. (Jan. 4, 2022)

Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Hal J. Singer, Ph.D (Dec. 7, 2021)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to McDonald’S Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Hal J. Singer, Ph.D (Dec. 21, 2021)

Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Hal J. Singer, Ph.D. (Jan. 4, 2022)

Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on McDonald’s Asserted Justifications (Dec. 21, 2021)

United States’ Motion for Leave to File Statement of Interest (Feb. 17, 2022)

Defendants’ Opposition to United States’ Motion for Leave to File Statement of Interest (Feb. 18, 2022)

Reply in Support of United States’ Motion for Leave to File Statement of Interest (Feb. 22, 2022)

Notification of Docket Entry (Mar. 2, 2022) (denying DOJ's motion to file a statement of interest

Hearing (Mar. 2, 2022) [Doc. 452} Transcript [Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/1/2022]

 

Commentary

± Oz Shy & Rune Stenbacka, Noncompete Agreements, Training, and Wage Competition (Jan. 4, 2022)

 

1-800-CONTACTS
(FTC 2016)

Administrative trial

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

Respondent 1-800 Contacts, Inc.'s Answer and Defenses to Administrative Complaint (Aug. 29, 2016)

Scheduling Order (Sept. 7, 2016)

Respondent's Motion for Discovery from the Commission Pursuant to Rule 3.36 (Oct. 3, 2016)

Declaration of Justin P. Raphael in Support of Respondent's Motion for Discovery from the Commission Purusant to Rule 3.36 (Oct. 3, 2016)

[Proposed) Order Granting Respondent's Motion for Discovery from the Commission Purusant to Rule 3.36 (Oct. 3, 2016)

Complaint Counsel’s Opposition to Respondent’s Motion for a Rule 3.36 Subpoena (Oct. 14, 2016)

Respondent 1-800 Contacts' Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Discovery from the Commission Pursuant to Rule 3.36 (Oct. 18, 2016)

Order on Respondent's Motion for Issuance of a Subpoena under Rule 3.36 (Oct. 28, 2016)

Complaint Counsel’s Motion for Partial Summary Decision (Nov. 3, 2016) (as to three defenses)

Respondent 1-800 Contacts, Inc.'s Responses to Complaint Counsel's Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of their Motion for Partial Summary Decision; Respondent's Separate and Concise Statement of Material Facts that Present Genuine Issues for Trial (Nov. 16, 2016)

Complaint Counsel’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Decision (Nov. 25, 2016)

Opinion and Order of The Commission (Feb. 1, 2017)

Respondent's Renewed Motion for Discovery from the Commission Pursuant to Rule 3.36 (Nov. 28, 2016)

Complaint Counsel's Opposition to Respondent's Renewed Motion for Discovery from the Commission Pursuant to Rule 3.36 (Dec. 8, 2016)

Order on Respondent's Renewed Motion for Discovery from the Commission Pursuant to Rule 3.36 (Dec. 20, 2016)

Complaint Counsel's Motion for Interlocutory Appeal of the Court's December 20, 2016, Order (Dec. 23, 2016)

Respondent's Opposition to Complaint Counsel's Motion for Interlocutory Appeal of the Court's December 20, 2016 Order (Dec. 30, 2016)

Order Denying Request for Interlocutory Appeal (Jan. 4, 2017)

1-800 Contacts, Inc.’s Statement of Explanation Regarding Computation of Time (Jan. 5, 2017)

Complaint Counsel’s Motion to Bar Presentation of Testimony and Arguments Contradicting Certain Issues Respondent Litigated and Lost in 1-800 Contacts v. Lens.Com (Jan. 26, 2017)

Respondent’s Opposition to Complaint Counsel’s Motion to Bar Presentation of Testimony and Arguments Contradicting Certain Issues Respondent Litigated and Lost in 1-800 Contacts v. Lens.Com (Feb. 7, 2016)

Complaint Counsel’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Respondent’s Opposition to Complaint Counsel’s Motion to Bar Presentation of Testimony and Arguments Contradicting Certain Issues Respondent Litigated and Lost in 1-800 Contacts v. Lens.Com (Feb. 9, 2016)

Order Denying Complaint Counsel's Motion to Bar Testimony and Argument (Feb. 21, 2016)

Joint Motion Regarding the Hearing Schedule (Mar. 7, 2017)

Order Granting Joint Motion Regarding Hearing Schedule (Mar. 8, 2017)

Complaint Counsel’s Corrected Pre-Trial Brief and Exhibits (Apr. 3, 2017)

Respondent 1-800 Contacts’ Second Corrected Pre-Trial Brief (Apr. 10, 2017)

Complaint Counsel’s Corrected Post-Trial Brief and Exhibits (public version filed June 22, 2017)

Complaint Counsel’s Corrected Proposed Findings of Fact (public version filed June 22, 2017)

Respondent 1-800 Contacts’ Post-Trial Brief (June 15, 2017; public version filed June 22, 2017)

Respondent 1-800 Contacts, Inc.’s [Proposed] Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (public version filed June 22, 2017)

Complaint Counsel’s Post-Trial Reply Findings of Fact (July 19, 2017)

Complaint Counsel’s Post-Trial Reply Findings of Fact (July 19, 2017)

Respondent 1-800 Contacts’ Corrected Post-Trial Reply Brief (July 20, 2017)

Respondent 1-800 Contacts, Inc.’s Corrected Replies to Complaint Counsel’s Corrected Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (July 20, 2017)

Initial Decision (Oct. 27, 2017) (FTC news release)

Notice of Appeal (July 27, 2017)

 

Appeal to the full Commission

Respondent’s Brief on Appeal (Dec. 12, 2017)

Complaint Counsel’s Answering Brief to Respondent’s Appeal Brief (Feb. 9, 2018)

Respondent’s Reply Brief on Appeal (Feb. 27, 2018)

Complaint Counsel’s Compilation of Materials for Oral Argument Before the Commission (June 19, 2018)

Respondent’s Compilation of Materials to Facilitate Oral Argument Presentation (June 19, 2018)

Oral argument transcript (June 26, 2018)

Opinion of the Commission (Nov. 7, 2018) (FTC news release)

Concurring Opinion of Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter (Nov. 7, 2018)

Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips (Nov. 7, 2018)

Respondent 1-800 Contacts, Inc.'s Application for a Stay Pending Review by a United States Court of Appeals (Dec. 10, 2018)

Complaint Counsel’s Opposition to Respondent’s Application for a Stay Pending Review by a U.S. Court of Appeals (Dec. 18, 2018)

Respondent 1-800 Contacts, Inc.’s Reply Brief in Support of its Application for a Stay Pending Review by a United States Court of Appeals (Dec. 26, 2018)

Order Staying Effective Date Of Final Order (Jan. 31, 2019)

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Respondent’s Application for a Stay Pending Judicial Review (Feb. 12, 2019)

 

Second Circuit Appeal

Petition for Review, 1-800-Contacts v. FTC, No. 18-3848 (docketed Dec. 28, 2018)

Docketing Notice (Dec. 28, 2018)

Docket sheet (downloaded July 23, 2020)

Confidential Page Proof Brief for Petitioner (June 7, 2019) (redacted)

Final Form Brief for Petitioner (Oct. 10, 2019) (redacted)

Brief of United States Council for International Business As Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (June 14, 2019)

Brief of Richard A. Epstein, Keith N. Hylton, Thomas A. Lambert, Geoffrey A. Manne, Hal Singer, and Washington Legal Foundation As Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner (June 14, 2019)

Brief of Amicus Curiae The American Intellectual Property Law Association in Support of Petitioner and Vacatur (June 14, 2019)

Brief of the Federal Trade Commission (Oct. 7, 2019)

Brief for Intellectual Property, Internet Law, and Antitrust Professors As Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent and Affirmance (Sept. 12, 2019)

Final Form Reply Brief for Petitioner (Oct. 10, 2019)

Argument (Mar. 5, 2020)

Letter to the Clerk from Imad D. Abyad (FTC) responding to question at oral argument (Mar. 6, 2020)

Letter to the Clerk from Stephen Fishbein (Sherman & Sterling for 1-800-Contacts) responding to FTC letter (Mar. 9, 2020)

 

 

± FTC web page

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 grounds 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 (Alsron)
(private 2014)

Alston

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

Docket sheet (downloaded Ma.r 20, 2021)

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 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)

Conditional Transfer Order (CTO -1)

Conditional Transfer Order (CTO -2)

N.D. Cal.

Consolidated Amended Complaint, In re National Collegiate Athletic Association Athletic Grant in Aid Cap Antitrust Litig., MDL Case 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 Mar. 20, 2021)

Order (1) Denying the Floyd Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Hausfeld LLP and Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP as Co-Lead Counsel; (2) Denying the Application to Appoint the Dugan Law Firm as Additional Co-Lead Counsel; and (3) Appointing Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel (Aug. 22, 2014)

Order Denying Motion to Dismiss (Oct. 10, 2014)

Case Management Order (Oct. 10, 2014)

Amended Complaint– Class Action Seeking Injunction (Oct. 30, 2014) (relating to Jenkins v. NCAA)

Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint (Nov. 6, 2014)

NB: Answer of other defendants not included

Consolidated Plaintiffs’ and Jenkins Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion for Class Certification (Nov. 14, 2014) (injunctive relief calss)

Consolidated Plaintiffs’ and Jenkins Plaintiffs’ Amended Joint Motion for Class Certification (Feb. 20, 2015)

Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Amended Joint Motion for Class Certification (Apr. 30, 2015)

Consolidated Plaintiffs’ and Jenkins Plaintiffs’ Joint Reply in Support of Class Certification (June 26, 2015) [redacted public version]

Defendants’ Sur-Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Amended Joint Motion for Class Certification (Sept. 8, 2015)

Order Granting Motion for Rule 23(b)(2) Class Certification (Dec. 4, 2015)

Order, Jenkins v. NCAA, No. 15-80219 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2016) (denying petition for Rule 26(f) appeal of order granting class certification)

 

 

Second Amended Complaint– Class Action Seeking Injunction (Feb. 13, 2015)

Consolidated Plaintiffs’ and Jenkins Plaintiffs’ Joint Brief re Coordination and Impact of Ninth Circuit Ruling (Oct. 8, 2015) (re Ninth Circuit's O'Bannon decision)

 

Consolidated Plaintiffs’ and Jenkins Plaintiffs’ Joint Reply re Coordination and Impact of Ninth Circuit Ruling (Oct. 22, 2015)

Joint Submission on Proposed Briefing Schedules for the Rule 23(b)(3) Motion, Deadlines for Discovery, Expert Discovery and Summary Judgment Motions (Oct. 15, 2015)

Order on Briefing Schedule for Rule 23(b)(3) Motion, Deadlines for Discovery, Expert Discovery and Summary Judgment Motions (Oct. 27, 2015)

Consolidated Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Certification of Damages Classes (originally filed under seal on March 22, 2016; unsealed on March 23, 2016)

Expert Report of Daniel A. Rascher on Damages Class Certification (Mar. 22, 2016)

Defendants’ Notice of Motion, Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof to Exclude the Opinions of Dr. Daniel A. Rascher (Aug. 26, 2016)

Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Consolidated Plaintiffs’ Motion for Certification of Damages Classes (Aug. 26, 2016)

 

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (May 16, 2016)

[Proposed] Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (May 16, 2016)

Consolidated Plaintiffs’ and Jenkins Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (May 31, 2016)

Defendants’ Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (June 7, 2016)

Hearing transcript (Aug. 2, 2016)

Order Denying Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Aug. 8, 2016)

 

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Aug. 11, 2017)

Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment and for Exclusion of Expert Testimony, and Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Sept. 29, 2017)

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Exclusion of Expert Testimony; and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Exclude Proposed Testimony of James Heckman (Nov. 7, 2017)

Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony, and Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony (Dec. 8, 2017)

Hearing Transcript (Jan. 16, 2018)

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (Mar. 28, 2018)

Order on Motions to Exclude Proposed Expert Testimony (Apr. 25, 2018)

 

Joint Case Management Statement (Jan. 9, 2018)

Joint Case Management Statement (May 15, 2018)

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order for Pretrial Proceedings (June 1, 2018)

Pretrial hearing transcript (July 19, 2018)

Order Regarding Sequence of Economic Expert Testimony (Aug. 8, 2018)

Order Resolving Motions to Exclude “New” Expert Opinions (Aug. 16, 2018)

 

Defendants’ Opening Statement (Aug. 27, 2018)

Direct Testimony of Dr. Daniel A. Rascher (Aug. 27, 2018)

Defendants’ Objections to Direct and Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Daniel A. Rascher (Sept. 4, 2018)

Direct Testimony of Dr. Roger G. Noll (Aug. 27, 2018)

Defendants’ Objections to Direct and Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Roger G. Noll (Sept. 4, 2018)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Objections to Direct and Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Daniel A. Rascher and Dr. Roger G. Noll (Sept. 4, 2018)

Order Reaffirming Exclusion of Certain Expert Testimony by Dr. Elzinga (Sept. 3, 2018)

Opening day for trial (Sept. 4, 2018)
Day 2 (Sept. 5, 2018)
Day 3 (Sept. 6, 2018)
Day 4 (Sept. 7, 2018)
Day 5 (Sept. 17, 2018)
Day 6 (Sept. 18, 2018)
Day 7 (Sept. 20, 2018)
Day 8 (Sept. 21, 2018)
Day 9 (Sept. 24, 2018)
Bench trial completed (Sept. 25, 2018)

 

Plaintiffs’ Closing Argument (Dec. 20, 2018) (refiled public document pursuant to order denying motion to seal portions of plaintiffs' closing argument)

Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Closing Argument (Nov. 9, 2018)

Exhibit A. Inadmissible Factual Assertions in Plaintiffs' Closing Argument Supported by Expert Testimony

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Closing Argument (Nov. 23, 2018)

Reply in Further Support of Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Closing Argument (Nov. 30, 2018)

Order Denying Motion to Strike (Mar. 19, 2019)

Defendants’ Closing Brief (Nov. 10, 2018)

Hearing transcript (Dec. 18, 2018)

 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Mar. 8, 2019) (reported at 375 F. Supp. 3d 1058)

Permanent Injunction (Mar. 8, 2019) (reported at 2019 WL 1593939)

Order Granting Motion for Clarification of Injunction (Dec. 30, 2020)

Judgment in a Civil Case (Mar. 12, 2019)

Order Regarding Jenkins v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 14-cv-02758 (Mar. 19, 2018)

Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Jenkins v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al., Case No. 14-cv-02758 (Apr. 9, 2019)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Jenkins v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (Apr. 23, 2019)

Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Jenkins v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al., Case No. 14-cv-02758 (Apr. 30, 2019)

Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Mantaining Stay on Jenkins (May 31, 2019)

Plaintiffs’ Statement re: The Disposition of Jenkins v. NCAA (Aug. 24, 2020)

Defendants’ Statement Regarding the Disposition of Jenkins v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-02758 (Aug. 25, 2020)

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Statement Regarding the Disposition of Jenkins v. NCAA (Aug. 26, 2020)

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Jenkins without Prejudice (Sept. 10, 2020)

Notice of Appeal (Mar. 22, 2019)

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Cross Appeal (Apr. 5, 2019)

 

Notice of Motion and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards (Mar. 26, 2019)

Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses and Service Awards (May 24, 2019)

Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards (June 28, 2019)

Final Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards, and Taxed Costs (Dec. 23, 2019)

 

 

 

Ninth Circuit

In re NCAA Athletic Grant-In-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig., No. 19-15566 (9th Cir. May 18, 2020) (affirming judgment for plaintiffs on liability and entry of permanent injunction) (reported at 958 F.3d 1239)

Docket sheet (downloaded March 18, 2021)

 

Supreme Court

NCAA v. Alston, Nos. 20-512, 20-520 (docketed Oct. 15, 2020)

Cert. petition

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (Oct. 15, 2020)

Appendix

Brief in Opposition (Nov. 9, 2020)

Reply Brief for Petitioner (Nov. 24, 2020)

Petition granted (Dec. 16, 2020)

Merits

Brief for Petitioner (Feb. 01, 2021) (No. 20-512)

Brief for Petitioners (Feb. 01, 2021) (No. 20-520)

Brief for Respondents (Mar. 3, 2021) (Nos. 20-512, 20-520)

Brief of Amici Curiae 65 Professors of Law, Business, Economics, and Sports Management in Support of Respondents (Mar. 9, 2021)

Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents (Mar. 10, 2021)

Brief of Amicus Curiae Advocates for Minor Leaguers in Support of Respondents (Mar. 10, 2021)

Brief of Historians as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent (Mar. 10, 2021)

Brief of Amici Curiae Sports Economists in Support of Respondents (Mar. 10, 2021)

Brief of Former NCAA Executives as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent (Mar. 10, 2021)

Brief of Amici Curiae African American Antitrust Lawyers in Support of Respondents (Mar. 10, 2021)

Brief for the American Antitrust Institute as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents (Mar. 10, 2021)

Brief for Amici Curiae Dr. Ellen J. Staurowsky, Dr. Eddie Comeaux, Dr. Joseph N. Cooper, Dr. Billy Hawkins, Dr. Amanda Paule-Koba, Dr. Richard M. Southall, and Dr. Robert W. Turner, II in Support of Respondents (Mar. 10, 2021)

Brief of Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Pennsylvania as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents (Mar. 10, 2021)

Brief Amici Curiae of Plaintiff Class Representatives on Behalf of the Certified Class in O’Bannon v. NCAA in Support of Respondents (Mar. 10, 2021)

Brief for the Players Associations of the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, the Women’s National Basketball Association, the National Women’s Soccer League, and National Collegiate Players as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents (Mar. 10, 2021)

Brief of Open Markets Institute, Color of Change, National Employment Law Project, Strategic Organizing Center, Towards Justice, and Scholars of Economics and Law as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents (Mar. 10, 2021)

Brief of Amicus Curiae the Committee to Support the Antitrust Laws Supporting Respondents and Affirmance (Mar. 10, 2021)

Reply Brief of Petitioner (due March 19, 2021)

SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, March 31, 2021

± Supreme Court docket page

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 (downloaded Aug. 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