Plaintiffs have not alleged a “sacrosanct” refusal to deal, but rather conduct that squarely violates the policy and spirit of the antitrust laws. See, e.g., Cel-Tech, 20 Cal. 4th at 182; see also 15 U.S.C. § 14; Tampa Electric Co., 365 U.S. at 327-29. 2. Plaintiffs’ Allegations Are Sufficiently Specific To State A Claim Under The “Fraudulent” Prong Of Section 17200.

Case 3:12-cv-00871-SMY-PMF Document 23 Filed 11/16/12 Page 10 of 23 Page ID #223 6 By their express terms, Sections 2 and 3 of the Clayton Act cover only goods, not services. 15 U.S.C. § 13(a) (“It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality . . . .”) (emphasis added); 15 U.S.C. § 14 (proscribing tying and exclusive dealing with respect to “goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities”); see also 14 Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 2314 (3d ed. 2012).

Broadcom’s tying claims under Section 3 of the Clayton Act should be dismissed on the additional ground that Broadcom cannot meet the Clayton Act’s requirement that both the tying product and the tied product be “commodities”. 15 U.S.C. § 14; see, e.g., Marts v. Xerox, Inc., 77 F.3d 1109, 1113 n.6 (8th Cir. 1996); Chelson v. Oregonian Publ’g Co., 715 F.2d 1368, 1372 (9th Cir. 1983); Crossland v. Canteen Corp., 711 F.2d 714, 719 n.1 (5th Cir. 1983). A patent license is not a “commodity” for purposes of the Clayton Act.

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical L.Ed.2d 2 (1984), rev’d on other grounds, Ill. Tool Works Inc. v. Indep. Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28, 126 S.Ct. 1281, 164 L.Ed.2d 26 (2006). Tying arrangements have traditionally been designated as per se illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 14. Int’l Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392, 396, 68 S.Ct. 12, 92 L.Ed. 20 (1947).

. June 12, 2012) In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 17 391 F.3d 516 (3d Cir. 2004) In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litig., 16 388 F. Supp. 2d 319 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) Lentell v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 396 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2005) 15 Lewis v. Newman, 14 59 F.R.D. 525 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) Maley v. Del Global Techs. Corp., 186 F. Supp. 2d 358 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) 22 - iii - 1073032_1 Case 1:09-cv-03701-JPO-JCF Document 366 Filed 09/22/15 Page 4 of 32 Page Milstein v. Huck, 8 600 F. Supp. 254 (E.D.N.Y. 1984) NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 693 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2012) 9 Newman v. Stein, 6, 18 464 F.2d 689 (2d Cir. 1972) Strougo v. Bassini, 8, 11 258 F. Supp. 2d 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) Teachers' Ret. Sys. of La. v. A.C.L.N., Ltd., No. 01-CV-11814 (MP), 2004 WL 1087261 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2004) 13 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 5, 6, 20 396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005) Weinberger v. Kendrick, 6 698 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1982) STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS 15 U.S.C. 14. 15. 22 ..4, 15, 21 19, 20 §77k. §77k(e) §77z-1. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1 Rule 23 Rule 23(c)(2) Rule 23(c)(2)(B) Rule 23(e) 19 19 20 SECONDARY AUTHORITIES 4 Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions (4th ed. 2002) §11.45 12 - iv - 1073032_1 Case 1:09-cv-03701-JPO-JCF Document 366 Filed 09/22/15 Page 5 of 32 Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Lead Plaintiffs and Class Representatives, the Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern California and Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California (together, "Plaintiffs"), respectfully move this Court for orders approving both the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of this class action (the "Action") and the 1 proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT I. On August 13, 2015, J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. (now known as J.P. Morgan Securities LLC), on behalf of itself and J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation I, Bri

B. SolarCity’s Restraint Of Trade Claims Are Properly Pled The District argues that SolarCity has not pled an agreement, as required by the claims for unreasonable restraint of trade and Clayton Act claims (Counts III-IV, VII- VIII). Bhan, 929 F.2d at 1410; 15 U.S.C. § 14; A.R.S. § 44-1402. But the District nowhere denies (1) that it has a contractual relationship with its electric customers and (2) that the SEPPs are critical terms of those contracts.

NAM issued these overly broad subpoenas seeking information about all aspects of Valassis’s business in a transparent – and improper – attempt to gain leverage in the Michigan litigations (Valassis I and Valassis II) and harass Movants. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In the claims most relevant to the instant dispute, plaintiffs allege that NAM exercises monopoly power and has unlawfully restrained trade in two markets in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, and Section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 14, as well as under state antitrust laws in New York and Michigan. Fourth Am. Compl., ¶¶ 2, 137- 184, Apr. 8, 2014, ECF No. 111.

Further, both Counts I and III allege that IGI has conditioned the lease of the CARS System on the tying arrangement, which by definition states a claim under the Clayton and Sherman Acts. See 15 U.S.C. 14 (“It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce . . . to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or Case 1:12-cv-01946-JLK Document 25 Filed 11/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 35 27    resale . . . on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities . . .”) Additionally, USPS’s assertion that the Tying Product actually be sold is incorrect. The Tying Product needs only to have market value to the consumer, sufficient to enable the defendant to exploit the market demand for the tying product to force purchase of the tied product.

Defendants Violated the Securities Registration Provisions , 10 of the Securities Act 11 a) LADP Shares Are Securities 12 The investments sold by LADP are shares ofLADP and as such are 13 securities in the form of stock. See Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 14 § 77b(a)(I), and Section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(10) 15 (defining "security" to include "stock"). 16 b) The Defendants Violated Sections Sea) and 5(c) 17 Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) & 77e(c), 18 prohibit the offer and sale of securities in interstate commerce, unless a registration 19 statement has-been filed with the Commission or is in effect, or the securities are 20 exempt from registration.

2. Wallace's Spam Campaign Warrants Aggravated Damages -15 U.S.C. 14 §7704(b)(3) Wallace's actions warrant an award of aggravated damages under multiple sections of the CAN-SPAM Act. Each violation described below independently supports an award of aggravated damages.