Eastern District Of California Uncertain Of Legality Of Joint Bidding Venture On Motion For Summary Judgment

In early 2003, California's San Joaquin County decided to establish zones within the county which would be provided ambulance services by one exclusive provider. American Medical Response, Inc. ("AMR"), a corporation that provides ambulance services throughout the nation, the City of Stockton (the "City"), and the City of Lodi entered into what they entitled a "Joint Venture Agreement," in which they agreed to submit a joint bid to the county to provide exclusive ambulance services. The agreement contained a provision stating that any party that withdrew from the agreement could not submit an independent bid to the county. Over the course of the next year, the relationship between AMR and the City deteriorated and AMR withdrew from the agreement and announced its intention to submit its own bid to the county. The City brought breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims against AMR. AMR moved for summary judgment on those claims on the ground that the Joint Venture Agreement was null and void because it violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In American Medical Response, Inc. v. City of Stockton, No. CIV-S-05-1316 DFL PAN (E.D. Cal. March 29, 2006), the Eastern District of California denied this motion. Continue Reading...
Tags:

First Circuit Largely Rejects Comcast's Efforts to Contractually Prohibit Antitrust Class Action

The extent to which private arbitration agreements can be used to restrict the availability of class actions is currently a topic of enormous interest and a rapidly evolving body of federal and state law. In Kristian, et al. v. Comcast Corporation, et al., case number 04-2619 (1st Cir. 2006), the United States Court of Appeal for the First Circuit recently decided a potentially very influential case challenging efforts by Comcast Corporation to compel arbitration of antitrust claims by its cable television subscribers, and to enforce contractual prohibitions on various kinds of procedural and substantive remedies, including that the antitrust claims could not proceed as a class action. The Comcast arbitration agreement required all disputes relating to cable television service, including federal statutory claims, to be arbitrated. It also restricted discovery, barred the recovery of treble damages, established contractual statutes of limitations, barred the recovery of attorneys fees and costs and barred the arbitration from proceeding as a class action or on anything other than an individual basis.

Continue Reading...
Tags:

Price Gouging - An Elusive Term House Pases H.R. 5253, Seeking To Create First Federal Gasoline Price Gouging Law

The House of Representatives, faced with pressures to take "action" on escalating gasoline prices, in the wake of the Katrina disaster, has enacted the Federal Energy Price Protection Act of 2006. The bill was introduced on May 2, 2006 by Representative Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), and passed on May 3, 2006 by a vote of 389 to 34.

Continue Reading...
Tags:

Indirect Purchaser and Remoteness Doctrines Barred Antitrust Claims Against Microsoft by End-User Software Licensees

A question arising from end-user license agreements ("EULAs"), which accompany applications software programs that have been preinstalled on personal computers, is whether they are sufficient to create the type of direct economic relationship between the end-users and the software maker that could support an action under the federal antitrust laws. See Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) (barring indirect purchasers claims for recovery of illegal overcharges under the federal antitrust laws). A related question is whether such end-users would have standing to allege antitrust damages claims under the Associated General Contractors v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (1983) (barring remote claims when more direct victims existed who could sue). The Fourth Circuit recently addressed both issues and upheld the District Court's dismissal of federal antitrust claims on behalf of 26 end-user licensees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Kloth v. Microsoft, 444 F.3d 312 (2006).

Continue Reading...
Tags:

DOJ Antitrust Highlights

FTC Antitrust Highlights

International Antitrust Highlights