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

7. Proving Unreasonableness

 

9. Mergers I

 

 

8. Horizontal Market Divisions, Group Boycotts,
and Other Horizontal Arrangements

 

Reading and class notes
Significant precedents
Horizontal market divisions
Horizontal group boycotts
Information exchanges
Standard setting
Case studies

 
Primary Materials
Supplemental Materials

Reading and Class Notes

Reading and class notes

Unit 8 class notes

There are no reading materials for this unit

 

Significant Precedents

Horizontal divisions of markets

Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 593 (1951)

District court

Complaint, United States v. Timken Roller Bearing Co., Civ. A. No. 24214 (N.D. Ohio filed July 31, 1949) (Blue Book No. 865)

± United States v. Timken Roller Bearing Co., 83 F. Supp. 284 (N.D. Ohio 1949)

Final Judgment, Civ. A. No. 24214 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 15, 1950)

Supreme Court

modified, Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 593 (June 4, 1951)

On remand

Final Judgment (Feb. 15, 1950) (as modified by the Supreme Court)

Order Terminating Final Judgment (Sept. 7, 1983)

 

United States v. Sealy, Inc., 388 U.S. 350 (1967) (± Oyez)

District court

Complaint, United States v. Sealy, Inc., No. 60-C-844 (N.D. Ill. filed May 31, 1960) (Blue Book No. 1533)

United States v. Sealy, Inc., 1964 WL 8089 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 6, 1964) 

Supreme Court

rev'd, United States v. Sealy, Inc., 388 U.S. 350 (1967)

 

United States v. Topco Assocs., 405 U.S. 596 (1972) (± Oyez)

District court

Complaint, United States v. Topco Assocs., Inc., No. 68 C 76 (N.D. Ill. filed Jan. 15, 1968) (Blue Book No. 1982)

Docket sheet

Opinion, United States v. Topco Assocs., Inc., No. 68 C 76 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 16, 1970) (reported at 319 F. Supp. 1031)

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Nov. 16, 1970)

Supreme Court

United States v. Topco Assocs., 405 U.S. 596 (1972) (No. 70-82)

On remand

Final Judgment, United States v. Topco Assocs., Inc.., No. 68 C 76, 1972 WL 669 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 1972)

Memorandum Opinion re Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, United States v. Topco Assocs., Inc.., No. 68 C 76, 1973 WL 805 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 1973)

Supreme Court

aff'd mem., United States v. Topco Assocs., Inc.., 414 U.S. 801 (Oct. 9, 1973) (No. 72-1477)

 

Palmer v. BRG of Georgia, Inc., 498 U.S. 46 (1990) (per curiam)

District court

Complaint, Palmer v. BRG of Georgia, Inc., No. 1:85-CV-04377-ODE (N.D. Ga. filed Nov. 4, 1985)

Docket sheet

Eleventh Circuit

Palmer v. BRG of Georgia, Inc., 874 F.2d 1417 (11th Cir. 1989) (No. 87-8804)

amended, Palmer v. BRG of Georgia, Inc., 893 F.2d 293 (11th Cir. 1990)

Judgment (Mar. 5, 1990)

Supreme Court

rev'd, Palmer v. BRG of Georgia, Inc., 498 U.S. 46 (1990) (per curiam)

On remand

Palmer v. BRG of Georgia, Inc., 928 F.2d 1097 (11th Cir. 1991)

On remand to district court

Final Judgment (Mar. 5, 1993) (consent decree)

 

Rothery Storage & Van Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 210 (D.C. Cir. 1986)

 

Horizontal group boycotts of customers and suppliers

 

 

Horizontal primary group boycotts

United States v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n, 224 U.S. 383 (1912)

District court

Petition, United States v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n, Eq. 5250 (C.C.E.D. Mo. filed Dec. 1, 1905)

Docket sheet

Order, United States v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n, Eq. 5250 (C.C.E.D. Mo. June 6, 1910) (dismissing the petition, which was heard by the four Circuit Judges and who were equally divided in judgment)

Supreme Court

Transcript of Record (Index)

Statement and Brief (Oct. 20, 1911) (for the United States)

Appellees' Statement and Brief (____)

rev'd, United States v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n, 224 U.S. 383 (Apr. 22, 1912)

On remand

Interlocutory Decree, United States v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n, Eq. 5250 (C.C.E.D. Mo. June 16, 1913)

Decree, United States v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n, Eq. 5250 (C.C.E.D. Mo. Mar. 2, 1914)

Decree, United States v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n, Eq. 5250 (C.C.E.D. Mo. Jan. 29, 1914)

modified, United States v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n, 236 U.S. 194 (Feb. 23, 1915)

Minutes Subsequent to February 23, 1915

Order and Decree, United States v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n, Eq. 5250 (C.C.E.D. Mo. Jan. 29, 1917)

Order, United States v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n, Eq. 5250 (C.C.E.D. Mo. Feb. 8, 1923)

Final Decree, United States v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n, Eq. 5250 (C.C.E.D. Mo. May. 21, 1925)

Commentary

± Stephen M. Maurer & Suzanne Scotchmer, The Essential Facilities Doctrine:: The Lost Message of Terminal Railroad (2014)

 

Eastern States Retail Lumbers Dealers Ass'n v. United States, 234 U.S. 600 (1914)

District court

Petition, United States v. Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers' Ass'n, Eq. 7-123 (S.D.N.Y. filed May 19, 1911) (Blue Book No. 85)

United States v. Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers' Ass'n, 201 F. 581 (S.D.N.Y. 1912)

Supreme Court

Final Decree, United States v. Eastern States Retail Lumbers Dealers Ass'n, Equity No. E. 7-123.(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 1913)

 

Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945)

District court

Complaint, United States v. Associated Press, Civ. No. 19-163 (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 28, 1942)

Supreme Court

 

Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pacific Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U.S. 284 (1985) (± Oyez)

 
Horizontal secondary group boycott

United States v. General Motors Corp., 384 U.S. 127 (1966) (± Oyez)

Prior criminal action

Indictment, United States v. General Motors Corp., Cr. 30132 (S.D. Cal. returned Oct. 12, 1961) (Blue Book No. 1628)

District court

Complaint, United States v. General Motors Corp., Civ. No. 62-1208) (S.D. Cal. filed Aug. 30, 1962) (Blue Book No. 1707)

United States v. General Motors Corp., 234 F. Supp. 85 (S.D. Cal. Aug 24, 1964) (Civ. No. 62-1208)

Supreme Court

rev'd, United States v. General Motors Corp., 384 U.S. 127 (Apr. 28, 1966) (± Oyez)

 

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

 
   

± Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. FTC, 221 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2000)

See F.M. Scherer, Retailer-Instigated Restraints on Suppliers' Sales: Toys "R" Us (2000), in The Antitrust Revolution 441 (John E. Kwoka, Jr. & Lawrence J. White eds., 5th ed. 2009).

Other group boycotts

± Missouri v. Nat'l Org. for Women, 620 F.2d 1301 (8th Cir. 1980)

 
 

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886 (1982) (± Oyez)

 
 

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

 
Horizontal information exchanges

American Column & Lumber Co. v. United States, 257 U.S. 377 (1921)

District court

Complaint, United States v. American Column & Lumber Co., Eq. No. 751 (W.D. Tenn. filed Feb. 14, 1920) (Blue Book No. 210)

United States v. American Column & Lumber Co., 263 F. 147 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 16, 1920) (No. 751)

Final Decree, Eq. No. 751 (W.D. Tenn. filed Apri. 2, 1920)

Supreme Court

aff'd, American Column & Lumber Co. v. United States, 257 U.S. 377 (1921) (No. 71)

 

Maple Flooring Mfrs.' Ass'n v. United States, 268 U.S. 563 (1925)

District court

Petition, Maple Flooring Mfrs.' Ass'n v. United States, Eq. No. 1979 (W.D. Mich. filed Mar. 5, 1923) (Blue Book No. 274)

Docket sheet

Final Decree, Maple Flooring Mfrs.' Ass'n v. United States, Eq. No. 1979 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 4, 1924) (printed)

Petition for Appeal (Jan. 4, 1924)

Supreme Court

Transcript of Record (Index)

Brief and Argument for Appellants (Oct. 25, 1924)

Reply Brief on Behalf of the Untied States (Nov. 25, 1924)

rev'd, Maple Flooring Mfrs.' Ass'n v. United States, 268 U.S. 563 (1925)

Mandate (Oct. 22, 1925)

On remand

Decree, Maple Flooring Mfrs.' Ass'n v. United States, Eq. No. 1979 (W.D. Mich. filed Jan. 6, 1926) (printed)

 

Sugar Institute v. United States, 297 U.S. 553 (1936)

District court

Petition, United States v. Sugar Institute, Eq. No. 59-103 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 30, 1931) (Blue Book No. 379)

Docket sheet
(large version for reading online)

United States v. Sugar Institute, Eq. No. 59-103 (S.D.N.Y. Mar 7, 1934) (reported at 15 F. Supp. 817)

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Oct. 9, 1934)

Final Decree (Oct. 9, 1934) (printed)

Supreme Court

Transcript of Record (Index)

Transcript of Record Supplement (Index)

Brief for Appellants

Brief for the United States (Jan. 17, 1936)

Reply Brief for Appellants (Feb. 3, 1936)

modified, Sugar Institute v. United States, 297 U.S. 553 (1936)

On remand

Order on Mandate (Oct. 19, 1936)

Commentary

± David Genesove & Wallace P. Mullin, The Sugar Institute Learns to Organize its Information Exchange, in Learning by Doing in Markets, Firms, and Countries 103 (Naomi R. Lamoreaux, Daniel M. G. Raff & Peter Temin eds.1999).

 

United States v. Container Corp., 393 U.S. 333 (1969) (±Oyez)

District court

Complaint, United States v. Container Corp. of Am., No. C-180-G-63 (M.D.N.C. filed Oct. 14, 1963) (Blue Book No. 1759)

Docket sheet

United States. v. Container Corp. of Am., 273 F.Supp. 18 (M.D.N.C. Aug 31, 1967) (No. C-180-G-63)

Judgment , United States. v. Container Corp. of Am., No. C-180-G-63 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 31, 1967)

Supreme Court

rev'd, United States v. Container Corp., 393 U.S. 333 (1969)

Mandate (Feb. 12, 1969)

On remand

on remand, United States v. Container Corp. of Am., 1970 WL 513, 1970 Trade Cases ¶ 73,217 (M.D.N.C. May 19, 1970) (NO. C 180 G63)

Final Judgment, United States. v. Container Corp. of Am., No. C-180-G-63 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 1970)

Final Judgment as to Defendant Albermarle Paper Co., United States. v. Container Corp. of Am., No. C-180-G-63 (M.D.N.C. May 19, 1970)

 

United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (1978) (± Oyez)

District court

Petition by the United States for an Order to Show Cause Why the Respondents Should Not be Found in Criminal Contempt, United States v. United States Gypsum Co., Crim. No. 1042-73 (W.D. Pa. filed Dec. 27, 1973) (Blue Book No. 2356)

Indictment, United States v. United States Gypsum Co., Crim. No. 73-347 (W.D. Pa. filed Dec. 27, 1973) (Blue Book No. 2357)

United States. v. United States Gypsum Co., 383 F.Supp. 462 (W.D. Pa. Oct 21, 1974) (No. Crim. 73-347)

Third Circuit

rev'd, United States v. United States Gypsum Co.., 550 F.2d 115 (3d Cir. Jan 12, 1977) (Nos. 75-1836, 75-1842)

Supreme Court

aff'd, United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (June 29, 1978)

On remand

United States v. United States Gypsum Co.., 550 F.2d 115 (3d Cir. Jan 12, 1977) (Nos.. 78-2263, 78-2264, 78-2265, 78-2266)

Horizontal standard setting

Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., 364 U.S. 656 (1961) (per curiam)

District court

Complaint, Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., No. 57C1167 (N.D. Ill. filed July 9, 1957)

Docket sheet

Amended Complaint, Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., No. 57C1167 (N.D. Ill. filed Jan. 8, 1958)

Second Amended Complaint, Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., No. 57C1167 (N.D. Ill. filed Oct. 20, 1958)

 

Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., ______ (N.D. Ill. Mar. 11, 1959)

Seventh Circuit

aff'd, Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peoples Gas, Light & Coke Co., 273 F.2d 196 (7th Cir. Dec 3, 1959) (No. 12638)

Supreme Court

Transcript of Record (Index)

Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Sept. 19, 1960)

Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae (Sept. 21, 1960)

Brief for Respondents (Nov. 4, 1960)

Brief for Respondent, American Gas Association (Nov. 2, 1960)

Petitioner's Rely Brief

rev'd, Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., 364 U.S. 656 (Jan. 16, 1961) (per curiam)

On remand

Third Amended Complaint, Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., No. 57C1167 (N.D. Ill. filed Mar. 9, 1961)

 

American Soc'y of Mech. Eng'rs, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp., 456 U.S. 556 (1982) (± Oyez)

 

Horizontal Market Divisions

High-Tech Employee "No Poach" Conspiracy

 
   
Prior DOJ action
 

Complaint, United States v. Adobe Sys., Inc., Civ. A. No. 1:10-cv-01629 (D.D.C. filed Sept. 24, 2010) (news release)

Stipulation (Sept. 24, 2010)
[Proposed] Final Order (Sept. 24, 2010)
Competitive Impact Statement (Sept. 24, 2010)
Plaintiff United States' Explanation of Consent Decree Procedures (Sept. 24, 2010)

Final Judgment (Mar. 18, 2011)

± DOJ web page

Commentary
 

± Martin C. Byford & Joshua S. Gansz, Collusion at the Extensive Margin (Sept. 2011).

Case studies

See here

 

Horizontal Group Boycotts

Tunica Web Advertising

Complaint

Amended complaint, Tunica Web Advertising, Inc. v. Barden Mississippi Gaming, LLC, NO. 2:03CV234-P-D (N.D. Miss. filed Feb. 11, 2005)

Docket sheet (downloaded Oct. 23, 2009)

Summary judgment

Order granting summary judgment (Dec. 21, 2005)

Memorandum Opinion granting summary judgment (N.D. Miss. Dec. 19, 2005)

 
Partial Final Judgment

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)

Plaintiffs' Motion (and Supporting Memorandum) for Determination and Finding Pursuant to FRCP 54(B) or in the Alternative for Interlocutory Appeal (Jan. 19, 2006)

Partial Final Judgment (N.D. Miss. Feb. 7, 2006) (order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion for Determination and Finding Pursuant to FRCP Rule 54(b) or in the Alternative for Interlocutory Appeal. Denied as to motion for interlocutory appeal; granted with regard to motion for partial final judgment. Claims of Cherry Graziosi, in her individual capacity, are dismissed. Defendants' counterclaims remain.)

 
Notice of appeal

Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal (Mar. 8, 2006)

 
Appeal

Tunica Web Advertising v. Tunica Casino Operators Ass'n, No. 06-60305 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2007) (reversing and remanding partial final judgment). Reported as Tunica Web Advertising v. Tunica Casino Operators Ass'n, 496 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2007)

 
On remand

Notice of reversal and remand (Sept. 6, 2007)

 
Summary judgment
 

Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 25, 2007)

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 25, 2007)

Hollywood Casino’s Renewed Motion For Summary Judgment (Oct. 25, 2007)

Memorandum of Authorities in Support of Hollywood Casino’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 25, 2007)

Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Casino Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Nov. 21, 2007)

Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Casino Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Nov. 23, 2007)

Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Hollywood Casino's Separate Motion for Summary Judgment (Nov. 23, 2007)

Stipulated dismissal

Agreed Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice (June 3, 2008)

 
Summary judgment

Order Denying Summary Judgment (N.D. Miss. Aug. 11, 2008)

Memorandum Opinion Denying Summary Judgment (N.D. Miss., Aug. 11, 2008) (2008 WL 3539731)

 
Trial

Jury trial began on Aug. 18, 2008

 
Settlement

Order Dismissing Action by Reason of Settlement (N.D. Miss. Aug. 22, 2008)

 

Information Exchanges

DirecTV (LA Dodgers RSN)

Complaint, United States v. DirecTV Group Holdings, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-08150 (C.D. Cal. filed Nov. 2, 2016)

 

Case studies
   
Commentary

See here

 

Standard Setting

   

 

Commentary
   
Case studies

See here

 

Case Studies

Horizontal Market Divisions

Michigan Hospitals (DOJ 2015)
MLB TV Market Allocations (private 2012)
High Tech Employees (private 2011)
C-E Minerals (private 2011)
Kason (criminal 2010)
Conergy
Online DVD (private 2009)
Carrier (private 2006)
Comcast (private 2003)

Horizontal Group Boycotts

MM Steel (private 2012)

Information Exchanges

DirecTV (DOJ 2016)

National Association of Music Merchants (FTC 2009)

Standard Setting
Other

Ferrellgas (FTC 2014)
(output reduction)

DirecTV (LA Dodgers RSN)

See here for materials

Michigan Hospitals
(DOJ 2015)

United States v. Hillsdale Community Health Ctr., No. 5:15-cv-12311-JEL-DRG (E.D. Mich. filed June 25, 2015)

Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 11, 2016)

 

Settlement (with respect to Defendants Hillsdale Community Health Center, Community Health Center of Branch County, and ProMedica Health System, Inc.)

Stipulation and Order (June 25, 2015)

Exhibit A. [Proposed] Final Judgment (JUne 25, 2016)

Competitive Impact Statement (June 25, 2016)

Plaintiff United States’ Motion and Memorandum for Entry of the Proposed Final Judgment (Sept. 24, 2015)

Allegiance Health’s Memorandum in Support of its Request that the Court Impose Discovery Conditions on the Settling Defendants Should It Enter Plaintiffs’ Proposed Final Judgment (Oct. 9, 2015)

Settling Defendants Hillsdale Community Health Center and Community Health Center of Branch County’s Brief in Opposition to Allegiance Health’s Memorandum in Support of its Request that the Court Impose Discovery Conditions on the Settling Defendants Should It Enter Plaintiffs’ Proposed Final Judgment (Oct. 16, 2015)

Exhibit A. Allegiance Health's First Request for Production to Defendant Hillsdale Community Health Center

Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiff United States’ Motion for Entry of the Proposed Final Judgment and in Opposition to Allegiance’s Request that the Court Impose Discovery Conditions (Oct. 16, 2015)

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Proposed Final Judgment (Oct. 21, 2015)

Order Dismissing Hillsdale Community Health Center, Community Health Center of Branch County, and Promedica Health System, Inc. as Parties to the Litigation (Oct. 21, 2015)

Litigation (with W.A. Foote Memorial Hospital,d/b/a Allegiance Health)

Allegiance Health’s Answer and Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Aug. 10, 2015)

 

Ferrellgas
(FTC 2014)

Complaint, In re Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., No. 9360 (F.T.C. Mar. 27, 2014) (FTC news release)

± FTC web site

Answer of Respondents Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. and Ferrellgas, L.P. to the Federal Trade Commission's Administrative Complaint (Apr. 21, 2014)

Answer of Amerigas Partners LP and UGI Corporation (Apr. 21, 2014)

Revised Scheduling Order (May 21, 2014)

Joint Motion to Withdraw Matter from Adjudication (Aug. 27, 2014)

Order Withdrawing Matter from Adjudication for the Purpose of Considering a Proposed Consent Agreement (Sept. 2, 2014)

Agreement Containing Consent Orders (Oct. 31, 2014) (for Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. and Ferrellgas L.P. ("Blue Rhino" respondents)) (FTC news release)

Decision and Order (filed Oct. 31, 2014)

Analysis of Agreements Containing Consent Orders to Aid Public Comment (Oct. 31, 2014)

Agreement Containing Consent Orders (Oct. 31, 2014) (for AmeriGas Partners, L.P. and UGI Corporation (ACE respondents)) (FTC news release)

Decision and Order (filed Oct. 31, 2014)

Analysis of Agreements Containing Consent Orders to Aid Public Comment (Oct. 31, 2014)

Statement of Chairwoman Edith Ramirez and Commissioner Julie Brill (Oct. 31, 2014)

Concurring Statement of Commissioner Joshua D. Wright (Oct. 31, 2014)

Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen (Oct. 31, 2014)

Federal Register notice (Nov. 7, 2014)

Decision and Order (Jan. 7, 2015) (Blue Rhino)

Decision and Order (Jan. 7, 2015) (ACE)

MLB TV Market Allocations
(private 2012)

Class Action Complaint, Garber v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, No. 1:12-cv-03704-UA (S.D.N.Y. filed May 9, 2012)

Docket sheet (downloaded Apr. 13, 2016)

Order (June 4, 2012) (finding case related to Laumann v. National Hockey League, No. 1:12-cv-03704-SAS (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2012)

Opinion and Order (Dec. 5, 2012)

Memorandum Opinion and Order (Mar. 6, 2013)

Opinion and Order (Aug. 8, 2014) (denying defendants' motion for summary judgment)

Opinion and Order (Sept. 22, 2014) (denying motion for certification of interlocutory appeal of the denial ofMLB Defendants's motion for summary judgment on the baseball exemption)

Plaintiffs’ Motions for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel (Sept. 19, 2014)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motions for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel (Sept. 19, 2014)

Corrected Joint Memorandum of Law in Opposition to class Certification (Nov. 25, 2014)

Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motions for Class Certification (Jan. 14, 2015)

Appendix

Opinion and Order (May 14, 2015) (granting Rule 23(b)(2) certificationa dn denying rule 23(b)(3) certification)

Defendants’ Joint Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. Roger G. Noll (Nov. 12, 2014)

Corrected Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Joint Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. Roger G. Noll (Nov. 24, 2014)

Declaration of Daniel L. McFadden (Nov. 11, 2014)

Declaration of Ariel Pakes (Nov. 24, 2014)

Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Expert Roger G. Noll (Jan. 14, 2015)

Corrected Order and Opinion (May 29, 2015) (granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to exclude)

 

Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Defednants' Expert Janusz Ordover (Jan. 15, 2015)

Memorandum of Law in support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Defednants' Expert Janusz Ordover (Jan. 15, 2015)

Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Janusz Ordover (Jan. 30, 2015)

Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Defendants’ Expert Dr. Janusz Ordover (Jan. 30, 2015)

 

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Jan. 8, 2016)

 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Jan. 20, 2016)

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Jan. 20, 2016)

Order Preliminarily Approving Proposed Settlement, Scheduling Hearing for Final Approval Thereof, and Approving the Proposed From and Program of Notice to the Class (Jan. 22, 2016)

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Apr. 11, 2016)

[Proposed] Order Approving Class Settlement And Awarding Attorneys Fees and Costs (Apr. 11, 2016)

Plaintiffs’ Application for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Service Awards, and Reimbursement of Expenses (Apr. 11, 2015)

Declaration of Ian Ayres

 

 

 

MM Steel
(private 2012)

District court

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, MM Steel, L.P. v. Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co., No. 4:12-cv-01227 (S.D. Tex. filed Apr. 19, 2012)

Docket sheet (downloaded Dec. 17, 2015)

Instructions to the Jury and Jury Verdict (Mar. 25, 2014) (completed by the jury)

Final Judgment (Apr. 29, 2014)

Defendant JSW Steel (USA) Inc.’s Notice of Appeal (Apr. 29, 2014)
Defendant Nucor Corporation’s Notice of Appeal (May 2, 2014)

Defendant JSW Steel (USA) Inc.’s Motion under Rules 62(f) and 69(a) to Set Amount of Supersedeas Bond at $25 Million (May 13, 2014)

Plaintiff MM Steel’s Response to JSW’s Motion to Set Amount of Supersedeas Bond at $25 Million under Texas Law (May 23, 2014)

Defendant JSW Steel (USA) Inc.’s Reply in Support of Motion to Set Amount of Supersedeas Bond at $25 Million (May 30, 2014)

Order (June 9, 2014) (denying motion)

Order (June 9, 2014) (staying execution on the judgment pending appeal without posting a supersedeas bond but requiring that Nucor must provide an alternative guaranty of judgment responsibility)

Amended Order on Motion to Stay Execution (June 19, 2014) (as to Nucor , Reliance and Chapel)

Agreed Order Staying Execution Against Nucor Pending Appeal (July 2, 2014)

Release of Judgment As to Only Reliance Steel and Aluminum Co. and Chapel Steel Corp. (Oct. 22, 2014) (reflecting a settlement)
Release of Judgment As to Only American Alloy Steel and Arthur J. Moore (Oct. 27, 2014) (reflecting a settlement)

Motion to Approve Supersedeas Bond and Request for Expedited Relief (Dec. 5, 2014) (by JSW)

Supersedeas Bond for Defendant JSW Steel (USA) Inc. (Dec. 5, 2014)

[Amended] Supersedeas Bond For Defendant JSW Steel (USA) Inc. (Dec. 9, 2015) (letter to the court)

Order Approving Amended Form of Supersedeas Bond (Dec. 11, 2014)

Fifth Circuit

MM Steel, L.P. v. JSW Steel (USA) Inc., No. 14-20267 (5th Cir. docketed May 1, 2014)

Docket sheet (downloaded Dec. 17, 2015)

Brief of Appellant JSW Steel (USA) Incorporated (Nov. 20, 2014)
Brief of Appellant Nucor Corporation (Nov. 20, 2014)

Brief for Appellee, MM Steel, L.P. (Feb. 23, 2015)

Reply Brief of Appellant JSW Steel (USA) Incorporated (Mar. 12, 2015)
Reply Brief of Appellant Nucor Corporation (Mar. 26, 2015)

Opinion, MM Steel, L.P. v. JSW Steel (USA) Inc., No. 14-20267 (5th Cir. Nov. 25, 2015) (reversing as to Nucor and affirming as to JSW)

High Tech Employees
(private 2011)

State court complaint:

Complaint for Violations of: (1) the Cartwright Act (Business and Professions Code Sections 16720, Et Seq.); (2) Business and Professions Code Section 16600; and (3) the Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, Et Seq.), Hariharan v. Adobe Sys., Inc., No. RG11574066 (Super. Ct. Alameda Cty. filed May 4, 2011) (alleging that defendants engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy with respect to the compensation of the plaintiff employees)

Removal to federal court:

Docket sheet (No. 5:11-cv-02509) (downloaded Mar. 5, 2016)

Joint Notice of Removal of Action from State Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1441, 1446 & 1453 (May 23, 2011)

Declination to Proceed before a Magistrate Judge and Request for Reassignment to a United States District Judge (May 27, 2011) (filed by plaintiff Hariharan)

Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related (July 19, 2011) (filed by defendants)

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related (July 20, 2011)

Related Case Order (July 27, 2011) (granting motion to relate cases)

Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Administrative Motion to Transfer Actions to the San Jose Division (Aug. 2, 2011)

Order (Aug. 4, 2011) (transferring cases to the San Jose Division)

Stipulated Pretrial Order As Modified No. 1 (Sept. 12, 2011)

Complaint

Consolidated Amended Complaint, In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., No. 11-CV-2509-LHK (N.D. Cal. filed Sept. 13, 2011)

Motion to dismiss complaint

Defendants' Notice of Motion, Joint Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof [Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1) & 12(B)(6)] (Oct. 13, 2011) (declaration)

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss (Nov. 4, 2011)

Defendants’ Reply in Support of Joint Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint (Dec. 2, 2011)

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss; Denying Lucasfilm Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss (Apr. 18, 2012)

Administrative matters

Discovery Dispute Joint Report #1 (Oct. 13, 2011) (over staying discovery pending decision on motion to dismiss)

Joint Case Management Conference Statement (Jan. 1, 2012) (interesting play by plaintiffs to put facts before the court while decision on motion to dismiss is pending)

Stipulation and Order Concerning Testifying Expert Discovery (Jan. 23, 2012)

Stipulated Protective Order (Jan. 24, 2012) (as modified by the court)

Joint Case Management Conference Statement (Jan. 27, 2012)

Motions for class certification

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification, and Memorandum of Law in Support (Oct. 1, 2012)

Expert Report of Edward E. Leamer, Ph.D. (Oct. 1, 2012)

Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Nov. 12, 2012)

Expert Report of Professor Kevin M. Murphy (redacted version Nov. 14, 2012)

Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike the Report of Dr. Edward E. Leamer (Nov. 12, 2012)

Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Report of Dr. Edward E. Leamer (Dec. 10, 2012)

Reply Expert Report of Edward E. Leamer, Ph.D. (Dec. 10, 2012)

Order Granting in Part, Denying in Part Motion for Class Certification (Apr. 5, 2013)

Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion and Brief in Support of Class Certification (May 10, 2013)

Defendants’ Opposition to Supplemental Class Certification Motion (June 21, 2013)

Supplemental Expert Report of Professor Kevin M. Murphy (June 21, 2013)

Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Supplemental Class Certification Motion (July 12, 2013)

Rebuttal Supplemental Expert Report of Edward E. Leamer, Ph.D. (July 12, 2013)

Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion for Class Certification (Oct. 24, 2013)

Interlocutory appeal under Rule 23(f)

Petition for Leave to Appeal a Class Certification Order Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., No. 13-80223 (9th Cir.(Nov. 7, 2013)

Docket Sheet No. 13-80223 (downloaded May 17, 2014)

Amici Curiae Brief of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers in Support of Petition for Rule 23(f) Appeal of Class Certification Order (Nov. 7, 2014)

Plaintiffs’ Response to Petition for Leave to Appeal a Class Certification Order Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) (Nov. 18, 2013)

Order, In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., No. 13-80223 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 2014) (denying leave to appeal grant of class certification under Rule 23(f))

Motion to exclude testimony of Dr. Edward E. Leamer

Defendants’ Joint Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike the Improper Rebuttal Testimony in Dr. Leamer’s Reply Expert Report or, in the Alternative, for Leave to Submit a Reply Report of Dr. Stiroh; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Jan. 9, 2014) (Dkt. No. 557)

Opposition to Motion to Strike Reply Report of Edward Leamer, Ph.D. (Feb. 6, 2014)

Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Strike the Improper Rebuttal Testimony In Dr. Leamer’S Reply Expert Report or, in the Alternative, for Leave to Submit a Reply Report of Dr. Stiroh (Feb. 27, 2014)

Order re: Defendants’ Motions Regarding Dr. Leamer and Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Leamer (Apr. 4, 2014)

 

Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Joint Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Edward E. Leamer, Ph.D., and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Jan. 10, 2014) (Dkt. No. 570)

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Edward E. Leamer, Ph.D. (Feb. 6, 2014)

Defendants’ Reply in Support of Joint Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Edward E. Leamer, Ph.D. (Feb. 27, 2014)

Order re: Defendants’ Motions Regarding Dr. Leamer and Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Leamer (Apr. 4, 2014)

 

Joint motion for summary judgment

Defendants’ Joint Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Edward E. Leamer, Ph.D.; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Jan. 9, 2014) (Dkt. No. 556)

Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Opposition to Defendants’ Joint and Individual Motions for Summary Judgment (Feb. 6, 2014)

Defendants’ Joint Reply Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment and Joint Objections to Plaintiffs’ Evidence Submitted in Opposition to Summary Judgment (Feb. 27, 2014)

Order re: Defendants’ Motions Regarding Dr. Leamer and Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Leamer (Apr. 4, 2014)

 

Individual motions for summary judgment

Defendant Adobe’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Jan. 9, 2014)

Defendant Apple Inc.’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Jan. 9, 2014)

Defendant Google Inc.’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Jan. 9, 2014)

Notice of Motion and Motion by Intel Corporation for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro 56 (Jan. 9, 2014)

Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Opposition to Defendants’ Joint and Individual Motions for Summary Judgment (Feb. 6, 2014)

Intel’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56 (Feb. 27, 2014)

Defendant Google Inc’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (Feb. 27, 2014)

Defendant Apple Inc.’s Reply Memorandum in Support of its Individual Motion for Summary Judgment (Feb. 27, 2014)

Defendant Adobe’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Feb. 27, 2014)

Order Denying Defendants’ Individual Motions for Summary Judgment (Mar. 28, 2014)

 

Settlement (Pixar, Lucasfilm, and Intuit)

Letter notiffying Judge Koh of settlement of techncial class claims (July 12, 2013)

Order Regarding July 12, 2013 Notice of Settlement Letter (July 14, 2013)

Plaintiffs’ Brief Regarding the Impact of the Proposed Settlement on Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion for Class Certification (July 26, 2013)

Defendants Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, and Intuit’s Joint Brief Regarding the Impact of the Proposed Pixar and Lucasfilm Settlements on the Supplemental Class Certification Motion (July 26, 2013)

Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlements; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Sept. 21, 2013)

Notice of Motion and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlements; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Apr. 10, 2014)

Proposed order (Apr. 10, 2014)

Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlements with Pixar, Lucasfilm, and Intuit (May 16, 2014)

Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Service Awards (May 16, 2014)

Final Judgment (June 9, 2014)

Intuit Inc., Pixar, and Lucasfilm, Ltd.’s Joint Motion Requesting Entry of Amended Final Judgment (June 9, 2014)

Amended Final Judgment (June 20, 2014)

 

First settlement (Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel)

Letter notiffying Judge Koh of settlement (Apr. 24, 2014)

Letter to Judge Koh from Michael Devine describing proposed settlment as grossly inadequate (May 11, 2014)

Communications to Judge Koh opposing settlement (docketed May 16, 2014)

Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (May 22, 2014)

Proposed order

Class Representative Michael Devine’s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (June 5, 2014)

Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (June 12, 2014)

Motion hearing transcript (June 19, 2014) (set for release Sept. 23, 2014)

Order (Aug. 8, 2014) (denying motion for preliminary approval)

Petition for a writ of mandamus

Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, In re Adobe Sys., Inc., No. 14-72745 (9th Cir. filed Sept. 4, 2014)

Docket sheet (No. 14-72745) (downloaded Sept. 26, 2014)

 

Second settlement (Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel)

Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Jan. 15, 2015)

Settlement Agreement

Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement with Defendants Adobe Systems Incorporated, Apple Inc., Google Inc., and Intel Corporation, Approving Form and Manner of Notice, and Scheduling Final Approval Hearing (Mar. 4, 2015)

Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement with Defendants Adobe Systems Incorporated, Apple Inc., Google Inc., and Intel Corporation (Sept. 2, 2015)

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motions for Attorney’s Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Service Awards (Sept. 2, 2015)

Final judgment

Final Judgment and Dismissal (Sept. 3, 2015)

Prior DOJ action

Complaint, United States v. Adobe Sys., Inc., Civ. A. No. 1:10-cv-01629 (D.D.C. filed Sept. 24, 2010) (news release)
Stipulation (Sept. 24, 2010)
[Proposed] Final Order (Sept. 24, 2010)
Competitive Impact Statement (Sept. 24, 2010)
Plaintiff United States' Explanation of Consent Decree Procedures (Sept. 24, 2010)

Final Judgment (Mar. 18, 2011)

± DOJ web page

C-E Minerals
(private 2011)

Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, C-E Minerals, Inc. v. CARBO Ceramics, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-02574-JOF (N.D. Ga. filed Aug. 4, 2011)

Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 25, 2012)

Answer and Counterclaims (Aug. 25, 2011)

Answer to Counterclaim (Sept. 15, 2011)

First Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Sept. 15, 2011)

Exhibit A: Raw Materials Requirements Agreement
Exhibit B: Correspondence

Answer to First Amended Complaint (Sept. 29, 2011)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Supporting Brief (Sept. 14, 2011)

Exhibit 1: Declaration of Steven Fortier, Ph.D.
Exhibit 2: Declaration of Thomas Parias

Defendant’s Brief In Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Oct. 14, 2011)

Exhibit 1: Declaration of Mark Edmunds
Exhibit 2: Declaration of James R. Eiszner
Exhibit 3: Declaration of David Gallagher
Exhibit 4: Declaration of David Kessler

Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Oct. 31, 2011)

Exhibit 1: Declaration of Frank Lowrey
Exhibit 2: Second Declaration of Paul Hall

Order (Mar. 14, 2012) (granting preliminary injunction)

Kason
(criminal 2010)

Criminal Information, United States v. Kason Indus., Inc. and Peter A. Katz , Crim. No. 1:10-CR-188 (N.D. Ga. filed May 6, 2010) (DOJ press release).

Docket sheet (downloaded Aug. 18, 2010)

Plea Agreement (Kason Industries) (May 19, 2010)
Judgment in a Criminal Case (Aug. 17, 2010)
U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div. Press Release, Georgia Manufacturer of Food Service Equipment Hardware Pays $3.3 Million Fine for Role in Customer Allocation Conspiracy (Aug. 17, 2010).

Plea Agreement (Peter A. Katz) (May 19, 2010) (Katz was the president of Kason Industries)
Joint Motion To Continue Sentencing (Aug. 3, 2010)

DOJ web page

Conergy

Conergy AG v. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., 651 F. Supp. 2d 51 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (alleging defendant-supplier precluded entry by plaintiff into a downstream market).

National Association of Music Merchants
(FTC 2009)

Federal Trade Commission

Complaint, In re National Association of Music Merchants, No. C-4255 (FTC released Mar. 4)

Agreement Containing Consent Order to Cease and Desist (Mar. 4, 2009)
Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order to Aid Public Comment (Mar. 4, 2009)
Decision and Order (Mar. 4, 2009) (accepted for notice and comment)

Complaint (issued Apr. 8, 2009)
Decision and Order (Apr. 8, 2009)

 

Follow-on private action

J.P.M.L.

Transfer Order, In re Fretted Musical Instruments Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2121 (J.P.M.L. Dec. 9, 2009)
Note: Eventually 28 cases were consoidated in the Sourthern district of California for pretrial proceedings

S.D. Cal.

Consolidated Class Action Complaint, In re Musical Instruments & Equip. Antitrust Litig., No. 3:09-md-02121-LAB-DHB (S.D. Cal. filed July 16, 2010)

Order Denying Motion to Strike; and Granting in Part Motions to Dismiss (Aug. 22, 2011) (but granting limited discovery to prepare for a filing of an amended complaint)

Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, In re Musical Instruments & Equip. Antitrust Litig., No. 3:09-md-02121-LAB-DHB (S.D. Cal. filed Feb. 22, 2012)

Docket sheet (downloaded Apr. 24, 2016)

Order Dismissing Federal Claims; and Order Certifying Issue for Appeal (Aug. 20, 2012) (reported at 2012 WL 3637291)

Judgment in a Civil Case (Aug. 21, 2012) (dismissing first claim only, with prejudice)

Notice of Motion and Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (Sept. 17, 2012) (defednats' motion to amend judgemtn to dismiss state claims as well as federal claims)

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (Sept. 17, 2012)

Order Summarily Denying Motion to Alter Judgment (Sept. 18, 2012)

Ninth Circuit

Docket sheet (downloaded Apr. 24, 2016)

Appellants’ Opening Brief (Feb. 5, 2013)

Appellees’ Joint Response Brief (Mar. 28, 2013)

Appellants' Notification Regarding the Filing of Sealed Reply Brief (May 3, 2013)

Opinion, In re Musical Instruments & Equip. Antitrust Litig., o.12-56674 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2015) (reported at 798 F.3d 1186) (affirming grant of defendants' motion to dismiss)

Mandate (Nov. 9, 2015)

On remand

Order Following Appeal (Nov. 25, 2015)

Joint Statement in Response to the Court’s Order Following Appeal (Dec. 15, 2015)

Supplemental Joint Statement in Response to the Court’s Order Following Appeal (Dec. 21, 2015)

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dec. 21, 2015)

Order of Dismissal (Feb. 9, 2016)

Online DVD
(private 2009)

Blockbuster subscribers:

Blockbuster Subscribers Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, In re Online DVD Litig., Case No. M 09-2029 PJH (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2009).

Blockbuster Subscribers’ Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint (Mar. 30, 2010)

Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment (Apr. 29, 2011) (dismissing two Blockbuster subscriber complaints for lack of antitrust standing) (reported at 2011 WL 1629663).

Blockbuster Subscribers' Notice of Appeal (May 31, 2011)

Walmart:

Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement with Walmart Defendants and Certification of a Class for Purposes of Settlement; and Memorandum In Support Thereof (July 15, 2011)

Netflix’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement with Walmart (July 29, 2011)

Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement with Wal-Mart Defendants (Aug. 5, 2011)

Revised Order Granting Conditional Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement and Form and Plan of Notice (Sept. 2, 2011)

 

Appeal of settlement by objectors: Frank v. Netflix, Inc., No. 12-15705 (9th Cir. docketed Mar. 30, 2012)
Consolidated with appeal of grant of summary judgment to Netflix

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 14, 2013)

Opening Brief of Appellant Theodore H. Frank (Aug. 21, 2012)
Opening Brief of Appellant John Sullivan (Aug. 22, 2012)
Objector-Appellant Zimmerman’s Opening Brief (Aug. 22, 2012)
Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant Tracey Klinge Cox (Sept. 7, 2012)
Joint Opening Brief of Maria Cope and Edmund F. Bandas (Sept. 7, 2012)

Answering Brief (Oct. 9, 2012) (class plaintiffs in support of settlement)
Letter to the Clerk from Wal-Mart (Oct. 9, 2012) (stating that Wal-Mart will not file a brief)

Reply Brief of Appellant Theodore H. Frank (Nov. 5, 2012)
Reply Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant Tracey Klinge Cox (Nov. 7, 2012)
Reply Brief of Appellant John Sullivan (Nov. 9, 2012)
Objector-Appellant Zimmerman’s Reply Brief (Nov. 9, 2012)
Joint Reply Brief Of Maria Cope and Edmund F. Bandas (Nov. 15, 2012)

Argued February 13, 2014

In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., No. 12-15705 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2015)

 

Netflix subscribers:

Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, In re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litig., Case No. M 09-2029 PJH (N.D. Cal. filed May 27, 2009) (alleging a division of markets between Walmart, which was to sell but not rent DVDs, and Netflix, which was to rent but not sell DVDs).

Docket sheet (downloaded Apr. 26, 2012)

Order Granting Motion For Class Certification (Dec. 23, 2010) (with respect to Netflix subscribers)

Netflix’s Renewed Motion to Decertify the Netflix Subscriber Litigation Class (Aug. 12, 2011)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Netflix’s Renewed Motion to Decertify the Netflix Subscriber Litigation Class (Aug. 26, 2011)

Netflix’s Reply in Support of its Renewed Motion to Decertify the Netflix Subscriber Litigation Class (Sept. 2, 2011)

Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Decertification (Sept. 16, 2011)

Order Denying Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Decertify (Sept. 28, 2011)

Defendant Netflix’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment (May 11, 2011)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant Netflix’s Motion for Summary Judgment (June 17, 2011)

Netflix’s Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (July 22, 2011)

Amended Order Granting Motion or Summary Judgment (Nov. 23, 2011) (reported at 2011 WL 5883772)

Final Judgment (Nov. 29, 2011)

Netflix’s Bill of Costs re Netflix Subscriber Actions (Dec. 5, 2011)

Exhibit A: Declaration of Anthony Weibell
Exhibit B: Itemized Bill of Costs

Plaintiffs’ Objection to Defendant Netflix’s Bill of Costs (Dec. 19, 2011)

Netflix’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Objections to Netflix’s Bill of Costs re: The Netflix Subscriber Actions (Dec. 29, 2011)

Bill of Costs (Jan. 1, 2012)

Notice of Appeal (Dec. 20, 2011) (by Netflix subscribers)

Appeal: Resnick v. Netflix, Inc., No. 11-18034 (9th Cir. docketed Dec. 22, 2011)
Consolidated with objector's appeal of Walmart settlement

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 14, 2014)

Opening brief filed under seal

Brief of Defendant-Appellee Netflix, Inc. (Apr. 25, 2012)

Reply Brief for Andrea Resnick, et al. as Appellants (May 25, 2012)

Argued February 13, 2014

In re Online Dvd-Rental Antitrust Litig., No. 11-18034 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2015)

Carrier
(private 2006)

Amended Complaint, Carrier Corp. v. Outokumpu Oyj, No. 2:06-cv-02186-BBD-tmp (W.D. Tenn. filed Oct. 27, 2006) (original complaint filed Mar. 29, 2006)

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 14, 2014)

Order of Dismissal (July 27, 2007)
Judgment in a Civil Case (July 27, 2007)
Notice of Appeal (Aug. 23, 2007)
Notice of Cross-Appeal (Aug. 31, 2007) (by Outokumpu Oyj)
Notice of Cross-Appeal (Aug. 31, 2007) (by Mueller Industries Inc.)
Notice of Cross-Appeal (Aug. 31, 2007) (by Mueller Europe Ltd.)

Sixth Circuit:

Docket sheet (downloaded Apr. 22, 2012)
Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants (Dec. 29, 2008)
Proof Second Brief of Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant Mueller Europe Ltd. (Jan. 26, 2009)
Proof Second Brief of Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant Mueller Industries, Inc. (Jan. 26, 2009)
Proof Second Brief for Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants Outokumpu Oyj; Outokumpu Copper Products Oy; Outokumpu Copper Franklin, Inc.; and Outokumpu Copper (U.S.A.), Inc. (Jan. 26, 2009)
Proof Third Brief Of Plaintiffs-Appellants (Mar. 11, 2009)
Proof Fourth Brief of Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant Mueller Europe Ltd. (Mar. 31, 2009)
Proof Fourth Brief of Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant Mueller Industries, Inc. (Mar. 31, 2009)
Proof Fourth Brief of Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants Outokumpu Oyj; Outokumpu Copper Products Oy; Outokumpu Copper Franklin, Inc.; and Outokumpu Copper (U.S.A.), Inc. (Mar, 31, 2009)
Final First Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants (May 1, 2009)
Final Second Brief of Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant Mueller Europe Ltd. (May 1, 2009)
Final Second Brief of Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant Mueller Industries, Inc. (May 1, 2009)
Final Second Brief for Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants Outokumpu Oyj; Outokumpu Copper Products Oy; Outokumpu Copper Franklin, Inc.; and Outokumpu Copper (U.S.A.), Inc. (May 1, 2009)
Final Third Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants (May 1, 2009)
Final Fourth Brief of Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant Mueller Europe Ltd. (May 1, 2009)
Final Fourth Brief of Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant Mueller Industries, Inc. (May 1, 2009)
Final Fourth Brief of Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants Outokumpu Oyj; Outokumpu Copper Products Oy; Outokumpu Copper Franklin, Inc.; and Outokumpu Copper (U.S.A.), Inc. (May 1, 2009)

Cause argued (May 13, 2010)

Sixth Circuit Mediation Office involved (Aug. 17, 2010)

Carrier Corp. v. Outokumpu Oyj, Nos. 07-6052/6114 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2012) (reported at 673 F.3d 430) (reversing and remanding)
Mandate (May, 9, 2012)

Remand

Notice of Settlement (May 1, 2013)

Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice (May 2, 2013)

Judgment in a Civil Case (May 13, 2013)

Comcast
(private 2003)

Third Amended Complaint, Behrend v. Comcast Corp., Civ. A. No. 03-6604 (E.D. Pa. filed May 23, 2006) (original complaint filed Dec. 8, 2003)

NB: See here for additional class action materials

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Docket sheet (downloaded Sept. 9, 2012)

Memorandum Order (Aug. 31, 2006) (denying motion to dismiss Third Amended Complaint)

Memorandum Order (Dec. 19, 2006) (granting in part and denying in part partial reconsideration and denying defendants' motion for certification for immediate interlocutory appeal)

Memorandum Order (May 2, 2007) (certifying class for Philadelphia cluster) (reported at 245 F.R.D. 195)

Memorandum Order (July 31, 2007) (denying motion for JMOL under Twombly)

Order (Sept. 4, 2007) (denying defendants' motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to certify question for interlocutory appeal)

Memorandum Order (Oct. 10, 2007) (certifying class for Chicago cluster) (reported at 2007 WL 2972601)

Order (May 30, 2009) (granting in part and denying in part motion to decertify classes)

Third Circuit (Rule 23(f) appeal of grant of class recertification)

Order, Behrend v. Comcast Corp., No. 10-8009 (3d Cir. June 9, 2010) (granting leave for Rule 23(f) appeal) (docket sheet)

Case transferred to general docket at No. 10-2865. (SMW) (June 25, 2010) (docket sheet)

Brief of Defendants-Appellants (Aug. 30, 2010)

Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees (Sept. 29, 2010)

Reply Brief of Defendants-Appellants (Oct. 18, 2010)

± Oral argument (Jan. 11, 2011)

Opinion, Behrend v. Comcast Corp., No. 10-2865 (3d Cir. Aug. 23, 2011) (reported as 655 F.3d 182)

Supreme Court

Order Granting Petition for a Writ of Certiotari, Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, No. 11-864 (U.S. June 25, 2012) (limiting question on class certification)

See here for Supreme Court materials

 

7. Proving Unreasonableness

9. Mergers I