Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.

158 Citing briefs

  1. Sprint Nextel Corporation v. AT&T, Inc. et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION to Dismiss Complaint Joint Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Complaints of Sprint and Cellular South

    Filed October 7, 2011

    This is precisely the type of injury “the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes [the proposed transaction] unlawful.” Brunswick, 429 U.S. at 489. Second, Defendants’ argument overlooks the fact that Sprint is bringing only a claim for injunctive relief under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, not an action for damages under Section 4.

  2. Philadelphia Taxi Association, Inc. et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

    MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12

    Filed December 5, 2016

    In short, Plaintiffs do not allege facts demonstrating any injury to competition or to consumers in the form of decreased output or higher prices. See Brunswick, 429 U.S. at 488; see also Larry Pitt & Assocs. v. Lundy Law, LLP, 57 F. Supp. 3d 445, 452-53, n.29 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (defendant’s “alleged success in attracting clients, at the expense of its competitors” thus Case 2:16-cv-01207-JS Document 28-1 Filed 12/05/16 Page 16 of 20 12 resulting in lost revenue did not violate Section 2).

  3. Sprint Nextel Corporation v. AT&T, Inc. et al

    MOTION to Dismiss Complaint

    Filed September 30, 2011

    The Clayton Act does not provide a remedy for all adverse effects of unlawful mergers; it does so only for those adverse effects that are directly connected to “the reason the merger was condemned” under the antitrust laws. Brunswick, 429 U.S. at 487. Sprint therefore cannot establish standing based on injuries that flow from a preservation or enhancement of competition.

  4. Innovation Marine Protein, Llc et al v. Pacific Seafood Group et al

    Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim . Oral Argument requested.

    Filed July 12, 2017

    But Front St. Marine's parochial desire to displace Cal-Shell as a competitor is of no concern to antitrust law—antitrust laws "were enacted for the protection of competition not competitors." Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 488 (1977) (quotes omitted); Ehredt Underground, Inc. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 90 F.3d 238, 240 (7th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1056 (1997) ("Over and over, we stress that antitrust is designed to protect consumers from producers, not to protect producers from each other or to ensure that one firm gets more of the business.

  5. Brandywine Village Associates v. Carlino East Brandywine, L.P. et al

    MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM CORRECTED Memorandum of Law

    Filed May 24, 2017

    Carlino’s representatives allegedly making statements that it intends to open a supermarket does not rise to the level of anticompetitive conduct – if anything, Plaintiff’s complaints about Carlino’s “predatory” development demonstrate its own aversion to competition. See Brunswick Corp., 429 U.S. at 488 (“The antitrust laws were enacted for the protection of competition, not competitors.”).

  6. Americare Medservices Inc v. City of Costa Mesa et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint

    Filed January 6, 2017

    Id. at 429 U.S. at 488. Likewise, Plaintiff here could have been excluded (and still could be excluded) by the City and the County under Section 1797.

  7. Americare Medservices Inc v. City of LA Habra et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint

    Filed December 29, 2016

    Id. at 429 U.S. at 488. Likewise, Plaintiff here could have been excluded (and still could be excluded) by the City and the County under Section 1797.

  8. Americare Medservices Inc v. City of Fullerton et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint

    Filed December 29, 2016

    Id. at 429 U.S. at 488. Likewise, Plaintiff here could have been excluded (and still could be excluded) by the City and the County under Section 1797.

  9. Golden Boy Promotions Llc et al v. Alan Haymon et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed October 31, 2016

    at 489. Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O- Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 489 (1977). 241.

  10. Johnson et al v. Commission on Presidential Debates et al

    MOTION to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law in Support

    Filed January 8, 2016

    Moreover, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate antitrust standing if they would have suffered the same injury even without the alleged antitrust violation. See Brunswick, 429 U.S. at 487 (noting that acquisitions that “brought a ‘deep pocket’ parent into a market of ‘pygmies’” did not cause plaintiffs any antitrust injury because they “would have suffered the identical ‘loss’ . . . had the acquired centers . . . been purchased by ‘shallow pocket’ parents . . . .”); see also Lucas Auto. Eng’g, Inc. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 140 F.3d 1228, 1233 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that competitor’s gain in market share through acquisition of manufacturing and distribution rights did not result in antitrust injury because plaintiff would have suffered the same injury if a small business acquired the distribution rights); Alta.