12 Cited authorities

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith v. Curran
456 U.S. 353 (1982) Cited 572 times
Holding that congressional amendment of the Commodity Exchange Act that was silent on the subject of private judicial remedies did not overturn federal court decisions routinely and consistently recogniz[ing] an implied private cause of action"
Martin v. Automobili Lamborghini Exclusive
307 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2002) Cited 179 times
Affirming but remanding joint and several sanction of one and a half million dollars for a determination of each person's liability, taking into consideration ability to pay
Loeb Industries, Inc. v. Sumitomo Corp.
306 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2002) Cited 156 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts regularly handle time-consuming and difficult damages calculations, and that they may do so where the damages are not "inherently speculative" or take the form of certain complex "econometric analys[e]s"
In re Sumitomo Copper Litigation
74 F. Supp. 2d 393 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) Cited 82 times
Approving attorneys' fee award that constituted 27.5 % of total settlement
In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litig.
13-md-2481 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2014) Cited 16 times
Holding that "inquiries or investigations alone can[not] plausibly support an alleged § 1 conspiracy"
Arenson v. Board of Trade of City of Chicago
372 F. Supp. 1349 (N.D. Ill. 1974) Cited 51 times
Noting that “[i]t would be difficult to imagine litigation presenting issues of greater subtlety and complexity” than those presented in a large antitrust matter involving commodity futures markets
Vanslambrouck v. Fairfield Industries Incorporated
Case No. 2:11-cv-76-FtM-29SPC (M.D. Fla. Jun. 15, 2011)
Case No. 2:11-cv-76-FtM-29SPC. June 15, 2011 OPINION AND ORDER JOHN STEELE, District Judge This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs' Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #20) filed on April 6, 2011. Defendant filed a Response (Doc. #24) on April 15, 2011. I. On February 18, 2011, the Complaint (Doc. #2) originally filed in state court was filed in this court pursuant to a Notice of Removal. On March 7, 2011, defendant
White v. Marshall
Case No. 07-CV-892 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 30, 2009) Cited 1 times
Case No. 07-CV-892. January 30, 2009 ORDER J. STADTMUELLER, Chief Judge Plaintiff Dr. Velton C. White ("Dr. White") filed a copyright infringement action against Defendants Michael C. Marshall, Super Spring Orthodontics, LLC, and Speedaligners, LLC, (collectively, "the defendants") arising from the defendants' allegedly infringing use of Dr. White's copyrighted photographs on their website and written materials. In response to the complaint, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court
In re Lithotripsy Antitrust Litigation
No. 98 C 8394 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 6, 2000)
No. 98 C 8394 June 6, 2000 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RONALD A. GUZMAN, U.S. Judge. Before us is Plaintiffs' request for approval of its proposed settlement in this class-action lawsuit. Plaintiffs have initiated a class-action complaint alleging that the defendants and the individuals in the defendant class violated state and federal antitrust laws by conspiring to fix prices for a particular kidney stone treatment called lithotripsy and related services in the Chicago metropolitan area. We have
MacNeil v. Whittemore
254 F.2d 820 (2d Cir. 1958) Cited 17 times
Holding trial court properly permitted defendant to amend his motion to dismiss two days after original motion and nearly a month before the hearing on the motion
Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Cited 15,441 times 49 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"
Section 1651 - Writs
28 U.S.C. § 1651 Cited 11,197 times 60 Legal Analyses
Granting us the power to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our] . . . jurisdiction[] and agreeable to the usages and principles of law"

In re: Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation (Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs)

12 Cited authorities

Holding that congressional amendment of the Commodity Exchange Act that was silent on the subject of private judicial remedies did not overturn federal court decisions routinely and consistently recogniz[ing] an implied private cause of action"

Affirming but remanding joint and several sanction of one and a half million dollars for a determination of each person's liability, taking into consideration ability to pay

Holding that courts regularly handle time-consuming and difficult damages calculations, and that they may do so where the damages are not "inherently speculative" or take the form of certain complex "econometric analys[e]s"

Approving attorneys' fee award that constituted 27.5 % of total settlement

Holding that "inquiries or investigations alone can[not] plausibly support an alleged § 1 conspiracy"

Noting that “[i]t would be difficult to imagine litigation presenting issues of greater subtlety and complexity” than those presented in a large antitrust matter involving commodity futures markets

Holding trial court properly permitted defendant to amend his motion to dismiss two days after original motion and nearly a month before the hearing on the motion

Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

Granting us the power to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our] . . . jurisdiction[] and agreeable to the usages and principles of law"