IN RE LOWER LAKE ERIE IRON ORE ANTITRUST LIT

18 Citing briefs

  1. Cable Line, Inc. et al v. Comcast Cable Communications of Pennsylvania, Inc. et al

    REPLY BRIEF re MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

    Filed December 6, 2016

    The Complaint, therefore, alleges a cause of action on the basis of an initial overt act of unlawful maintenance of monopoly power that occurred more than four years ago, but which continues to allow 3M to commit the injurious act of overcharging Meijer and other purchasers. See Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore, 998 F.2d at 1172; see also In re K- Dur, 338 F.Supp.2d at 551; In re Buspirone, 185 F.Supp.2d at 378. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Meijer's claims are not barred by the statute of limitations to the extent that Meijer seeks to recover for any overcharges paid within the four years prior to the filing of the instant Complaint, plus any additional time period during which the statute of limitations may be tolled.

  2. 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

    This factor weighs heavily against BVA to avoid producing “speculative claims.” See In re Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litig., 998 F.2d at 1165. The fourth factor, the existence of more direct victims of the alleged antitrust violations, also weighs against standing for BVA.

  3. F. RUGGIERO & SONS, INC. et al v. NYK LINE (NORTH AMERICA) INC. et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition

    Filed January 26, 2015

    The “Supreme Court has considered and rejected the argument that, in the context of a defendant’s continuing violation of the Sherman Act, the statute of limitations runs from the violation’s earliest impact on a plaintiff.” In re Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litig., 998 F.2d 1144, 1171 (3d Cir. 1993). Every time a customer purchases a product at an artificially inflated price an antitrust violation occurs and a cause of action accrues, regardless of when the conspiracy was commenced.

  4. William A. Graham Company v. Haughey et al

    MOTION in Limine Concerning the Proper Scope of Jury Issues and Trial Presentations for the Second Damages Trial

    Filed July 10, 2007

    . 28 Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litig., 998 F.2d 1144 (3d Cir. 1993) (Mansmann, J.). In fact, the Third Circuit in Lower Lake Erie reversed a district court order permitting damages causation issues decided by a first jury to be re-argued to and re-decided by a second jury.

  5. In Re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

    REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION. This document was previously

    Filed January 22, 2019

    1), 7 Even if generic purchasers’ injuries were called “umbrella damages,” courts have allowed recovery for such injuries, as they are readily traceable to defendants’ wrongdoing. See, e.g., U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Ind. Gas Co., 350 F.3d 623, 627 (7th Cir. 2003); In re Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litig., 998 F.2d 1144, 1168-69 (3d Cir. 1993); In re Beef Indus. Antitrust Litig., 600 F.2d 1148, 1166 n.24 (5th Cir.1979); Strax v. Commodity Exch., Inc., 524 F. Supp. 936, 940 (S.D.N.Y. 1981); Pollock v. Citrus Assocs., 512 F. Supp. 711, 719 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).

  6. IN RE: Androgel Antitrust Litigation (No. II)

    REPLY BRIEF re MOTION for Leave to File Matters Under Seal re: 1730 Notice of Filing, REDACTED

    Filed June 20, 2018

    at 6 n.3. Case 1:09-md-02084-TWT Document 1741 Filed 06/20/18 Page 33 of 44 28 350 F.3d 623, 627-28 (7th Cir. 2003) (holding that when competitors conspire to restrict output, plaintiffs may recover damages for purchases from non-conspirators: “customers of fringe firms (sellers that have not joined the cartel) pay this higher [market] price, and thus suffer antitrust injury, just like customers of the cartel’s members”); In re Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litig., 998 F.2d 1144, 1168- 69 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding that plaintiffs may recover damages resulting from higher prices paid to non-conspirators: “Plaintiffs made payments to ‘defendants and non- defendants alike, but it was unquestionably [Plaintiffs] who bore the brunt of the increased costs attributed to the [Defendants] agreement to thwart development of the less expensive technology[.]”).63 4.

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

    MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

    Filed November 11, 2016

    This factor weighs heavily against BVA to avoid producing “speculative claims.” See In re Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litig., 998 F.2d at 1165. The fourth factor, the existence of more direct victims of the alleged antitrust Case 5:16-cv-05209-JLS Document 23 Filed 11/11/16 Page 20 of 35 12 violations, weighs against standing for BVA.

  8. Inserra Supermarkets, Inc. v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company, Inc. et al

    BRIEF in Opposition

    Filed September 30, 2016

    Each of the objections and lawsuits constitutes a separate overt act that inflicts new and accumulating injuries on IS. Cf., In re Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litig., 998 F.2d 1144 (3d. Cir. 1993)(although injury-causing actions began in 1950s and plaintiffs knew of them in the 1970s, suit in 1982 was not barred because the injuries continued within the limitations period). S&S’ attempt to bundle separate petitions and lawsuits as “one continuous litigation” has no support in law or reason.

  9. United States of America et al v. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc.

    REPLY

    Filed December 5, 2014

    14 Yet other cases cited by Plaintiffs reinforce the importance of requiring a re-trial where such a re-examination is threatened. In re Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litig., 998 F.2d 1144 (3rd Cir. 1993), found a Seventh Amendment reexamination violation when a second jury considered damages. Id.

  10. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company et al

    REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Exclude, 249 MOTION to Exclude / Warner Chilcott's Motion to Exclude the Declaration and Testimony of Expert Jeffrey Leitzinger [Redacted Public Version] re / Defendant Warner Chilcott' Reply in Support of Its Motion to Exclude the Declaration and Testimony of Jeffrey Leitzinger [Public Redacted Version] re REPLY

    Filed July 19, 2013

    Moreover, in Lower Lake Erie, the plaintiff steel companies were end-users of the transportation services at issue and were not reselling them to others, as the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs are here. In re Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litig., 998 F.2d 1144, 1154 (3d Cir. 1993). For those end-user steel companies, other than a price comparison between the price paid for the defendants’ services and the price of alternative services, no other damages measure was possible.