35 results for 'cat:"Antitrust" AND cat:"Class Action"'.
J. Tunheim grants the consumer and commercial indirect pork purchasers' and the direct pork purchasers' motions to certify classes in their antitrust action, and denies the port manufacturers' motions to exclude expert testimony of three experts. Each expert report satisfies the standard required for class certification, and all three classes satisfy the requirements of the civil procedure rules governing class actions.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tunheim, Filed On: May 8, 2024, Case #: 0:18cv1776, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, Experts, class Action
J. Evanson grants the consumer's motion to amend his class action alleging that Amazon entered into an agreement with Apple to ban third-party Apple vendors from Amazon's marketplace, forcing the consumers to spend more on Apple's products. Despite their arguments to the contrary, Amazon and Apple do not show that the consumer's potential inadequacy as a class representative qualifies as an inherent defect, and there is no undue delay in amending the complaint.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Evanson, Filed On: May 6, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv1599, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, class Action
[Consolidated.] J. Proctor denies, in part, a class of companies’ motion to compel pre-2015 structured data or, alternatively, to declare the Rule 37 implications of insurers’ refusal to produce the data in this antitrust lawsuit that partially centers on when the alleged injuries occurred. The insurers’ motion for a protective order based on the appropriate statute of limitations for the companies’ claims is denied, in part. There is a genuine issue of material fact concerning the limitations period of the claims and pre-2015 structured data, but the court agrees it began no earlier than 2015. The court barred the insurer Anthem from using the missing pre-2015 structured data against the companies and the precise limitations period shall be determined.
Court: USDC Northern District of Alabama , Judge: Proctor, Filed On: April 30, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv1209, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, Evidence, class Action
J. Durkin grants T-Mobile’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal over whether a putative consumer class has sufficiently alleged antitrust standing. The putative class opposes the now-closed merger of T-Mobile and Sprint and seeks, via this suit against T-Mobile’s parent company, to unwind the merger and prevent T-Mobile from having a monopoly over U.S. wireless services.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Durkin, Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv3189, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, class Action, Technology
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Lipman mostly denies the cheerleading defendants' motion to exclude certain expert testimony in this antitrust class action involving the cheerleading industry, specifically regarding the prices paid to participate in "competitive cheerleading competitions and camps." The economic expert's opinions are mostly admissible, as the defendants have not shown that her methodology for defining relevant markets is unreliable. The motion is granted, however, as to "her opinions regarding Varsity's motives."
Court: USDC Western District of Tennessee , Judge: Lipman, Filed On: February 28, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv2892, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, Experts, class Action
J. Wood largely grants a group of realtor associations’ motion to dismiss an antitrust class action brought by a class of home buyers. The home buyers accuse the realtor associations of conspiring with a brokerage firm to illegally affect price competition among real estate brokers, resulting in the home buyers paying illegally high commission rates for their retained brokers. The court, however, finds it lacks jurisdiction over one of the realtor associations, and rules the class representative has not sufficiently alleged Sherman Act violations. The class’s unjust enrichment claims stand.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Wood, Filed On: February 20, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv430, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, Jurisdiction, class Action
[Consolidated]. J. Pitts declines to dismiss class antitrust claims against Energizer, who consumers are suing for making a deal with Walmart that allows the supermarket to set the retail prices for Energizer products where they are sold. There are three different classes suing, and they have shown evidence of this agreement between the companies and that it resulted in unfairly high prices.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Pitts, Filed On: February 9, 2024, Case #: 5:23cv2093, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, class Action
J. Waterman finds that chiropractors were properly denied certification of class claims contending Wellmark violated Iowa Competition Law 553 and compromised profits upon entering administrative services agreements with over 400 employers that self-fund healthcare benefits for employees. The chiropractors failed to offer expert testimony to prove financial duress, and local variables precluded them from functioning as a class. Affirmed.
Court: Iowa Court Of Appeals, Judge: Waterman, Filed On: January 26, 2024, Case #: 22-0303, Categories: antitrust, class Action
J. Garaufus certifies a statewide putative class action lawsuit filed on behalf of debit card users that alleges American Express’s non-discrimination provisions, which prevent merchants from disclosing certain information regarding its point-of-sale agreements including how much it pays to each payment network, places an unlawful restraint on trade. The litigants in this case, who do not have or use Amex credit cards, argue they are in effect subsidizing Amex cardholders’ transactions as a result of the provision. The court, however, declines to certify a second statewide class for credit card holders, finding the litigants fail to allege injuries related to credit card rewards.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Garaufis, Filed On: January 9, 2024, Case #: 1:19cv566, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, class Action
J. Levy allows in part a veterinary product provider’s motion to dismiss claims brought against it in a class action brought by pet owners. They say the product provider coerced veterinary clinics to pay artificially inflated prices for its products through business practices that pushed out its competition, including steep penalties for clinics that try to end contracts with it. The pet owners lack antitrust standing to challenge the prices of the provider’s products because they buy veterinary services from the clinics who buy the provider’s products, but they do not buy the products themselves.
Court: USDC Maine, Judge: Levy, Filed On: January 8, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv392, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, Business Practices, class Action
J. Johnston denies John Deere’s motion for summary judgment on the pleadings of an antitrust class action. A class of customers allege that the equipment manufacturer is purposefully withholding the software tools needed to repair its products from farmers and independent repair shops, thereby monopolizing the U.S. tractor repair industry. In its 89-page decision, the court finds that the class sufficiently alleged its claims under the Sherman Act on both constitutional and antitrust standing.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Johnston, Filed On: November 27, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv50188, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: Agriculture, antitrust, class Action
J. Tunheim grants the commercial and indirect beef purchasers' motion for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses and a class representative service award related to a class-action settlement with meat packers in ongoing multi-district antitrust litigation. The past litigation expenses incurred were reasonable and necessary, and a $1.75 million fund for future litigation expenses is appropriate. Attorney fees totaling just over $8 million are also appropriate, as is a $15,000 service award.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tunheim, Filed On: November 21, 2023, Case #: 0:22md3031, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, Attorney Fees, class Action
J. Tunheim grants final approval to a class action settlement agreed to by commercial and institutional indirect beef purchasers in multi-district antitrust litigation alleging price-fixing by meatpackers. The settlement, which provides $25 million in monetary compensation and a guarantee of cooperation by one of the packers in ongoing litigation, is fair, reasonable and adequate, and all relevant requirements for class action settlements are satisfied.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tunheim, Filed On: November 21, 2023, Case #: 0:22md3031, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, class Action
J. Durkin grants a Japanese investment firm’s motion to dismiss for the lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue in this antitrust suit brought by a class of consumers challenging T-Mobile’s merger with Sprint. There is no ambiguity and colorable basis for personal jurisdiction over the investor, so jurisdictional discovery is not warranted. The court denied T-Mobile and the Japanese company’s motion to dismiss for a lack of antitrust standing, failing to properly allege direct or indirect evidence.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Durkin, Filed On: November 2, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv3189, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, Discovery, class Action
[Consolidated.] Per curiam, the circuit finds that the district court properly denied claims contending aluminum producers conspired to limit supply in North America to push up prices and generate excess profits because manufacturers made purchases from third parties, not the alleged conspirators, and thus did not constitute "efficient enforcers" of antitrust laws. As a result, their appeal from the denial of class certification should be dismissed as moot. Affirmed.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: November 1, 2023, Case #: 21-643, Categories: antitrust, Civil Procedure, class Action
J. Coulson grants a pharmaceutical company’s leave to file a sur-rebuttal expert report in this antitrust dispute between a health association and a class of third-party payors who say the company schemed to raise prices for its pulmonary hypertension drug Tracleer. The health association and class’s cross-motion to strike the report is denied. The parties have 14 days to confer and propose submit a jointly proposed scheduling order.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Coulson, Filed On: October 27, 2023, Case #: 1:18cv3560, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, Discovery, class Action
J. Du grants MGM’s motion to dismiss this class action alleging that various hotel operators on the Las Vegas strip unlawfully restrained trade by artificially inflating the price of hotel rooms using a single pricing software. The complaint has many pleading deficiencies. Factual allegations that could plausibly allege an agreement between the operators are not included. It is unclear whether all operators use the same pricing algorithm, though the class alleges this. The class will have opportunity to amend within 30 days.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Du, Filed On: October 24, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv140, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, Trade, class Action
J. Peterson partially grants the health care system's motion to dismiss a proposed class action lawsuit from two self-insured employers claiming the system violated federal antitrust law by using price fixing, unfair contracts and other anti-competitive practices to acquire a stranglehold on the market for inpatient and outpatient care in north-central Wisconsin at higher than average prices to consumers. Most of the employers' claims are stated and supported plausibly enough to avoid dismissal, but two claims alleging the system's exclusive dealing and conspiratorial efforts to influence competitors to reject reference-based pricing are dismissed.
Court: USDC Western District of Wisconsin, Judge: Peterson, Filed On: October 17, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv580, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, Health Care, class Action
J. Daniel grants the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology’s motion to dismiss an antitrust class action brought by a class of psychiatrists and neurologists. The class claims the board has illegal monopoly control over issuing certification for practicing psychiatrists and neurologists, via a specific certification program that practitioners must pay for. However, the court finds that the class has failed to sufficiently show how this program is distinct from other “continuing educational products” which are offered by other providers.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Daniel, Filed On: October 4, 2023, Case #: 1:19cv1614, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, Health Care, class Action
J. Davila allows some class antitrust claims to continue against Disney that allege Disney conspired with DirecTV to raise the prices and shun competitors from the "Streaming Live Pay TV" market. The complaint has done enough to show that Disney has used anticompetitive conduct to strengthen the barrier to entry in the streaming market, making it harder for new players in the space to get the infrastructure they need to compete.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Davila, Filed On: September 29, 2023, Case #: 5:22cv7533, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, class Action
J. Chun denies Amazon's motion to dismiss the consumers' class action alleging that Amazon uses minimum margin agreements (MMAs) to force the consumers to pay for overpriced products in Amazon's effort to unreasonably restrain competition. The consumers plausibly allege that the MMAs cause "supracompetitive prices or otherwise impair competition" by giving Amazon a monopoly on pricing the supplier's product against other online competition a majority of the time while Amazon receives a minimum margin on each sale regardless of the actual price.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Chun, Filed On: September 7, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv965, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, class Action
J. Lipman grants the indirect purchasers' motion to reconsider certain rulings in this putative class action alleging that the defendant cheerleading company charged "artificially inflated prices for goods and services, including enrollment in cheer competitions." On reconsideration, the court again dismisses their Tennessee Trade Practices Act claims "as to the Camp and Competition markets."
Court: USDC Western District of Tennessee , Judge: Lipman, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: 2:20cv2892, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, class Action
J. Tunheim grants the beef packers' motion to dismiss the ranchers' complaint in this putative class action alleging price-fixing in cattle markets. The ranchers have not established antitrust standing for the purposes of their Sherman Act and Packers and Stockyards Act claims, nor for relevant state antitrust and consumer protection claims. The ranchers have not clearly explained how the alleged price-fixing scheme injured them.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tunheim, Filed On: August 17, 2023, Case #: 0:22cv2903, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, Jurisdiction, class Action
J. Boulware grants the former UFC fighters’ motion to certify class as to actively competing fighters in their suit over the UFC’s dominance in mixed martial arts, allegedly because of anticompetitive behavior. The class contains over 1,200 members residing throughout the United States, making joinder impractical, and satisfying numerosity. All factors have been established for class certification, such as commonality, being that predominance has been established.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Boulware, Filed On: August 9, 2023, Case #: 2:15cv1045, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, class Action, Contract
J. Albregts denies a hotel customer’s motion to appoint interim class counsel in this suit alleging certain Las Vegas hotels used a common third-party algorithm to artificially inflate hotel prices. There are no competing lawsuits or firms creating a need to clarify responsibility for class interest protection. The court stays discovery, but in finding that the parties’ discovery plan contains deficiencies, it denies the joint plan without prejudice.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Albregts, Filed On: July 11, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv140, NOS: Antitrust - Other Suits, Categories: antitrust, Discovery, class Action