CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MDL-1206
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1999

In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation

This order approves eight settlement agreements in the multidistrict litigation, In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1206. The litigation involves claims by royalty and working interest owners against major oil companies for systematically underpaying for crude oil by depressing 'posted prices' below market value. The class comprises millions of members across the US, asserting both state law 'Lease Claims' and federal 'Antitrust Claims' of price-fixing. The court addresses jurisdiction, class certification under Rule 23, the fairness and adequacy of the settlements, and issues related to notice, claim procedures, attorneys' fees, and incentive awards.

Antitrust LawClass Action SettlementOil and Gas RoyaltiesMultidistrict LitigationPrice Fixing ConspiracyFairness DoctrineRule 23 CertificationSupplemental JurisdictionDue Process RightsAttorney's Fees Award
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Skelaxin (metaxalone) Antitrust Litigation

This memorandum addresses two motions for class certification in a pharmaceutical antitrust case concerning the muscle relaxant Skelaxin. Plaintiffs, comprised of Indirect Purchasers and End Payors, alleged that defendants King Pharmaceuticals LLC and Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. colluded to delay the entry of a generic drug. The Court denied both class certification motions, finding the End Payors' proposed class not ascertainable due to the need for individualized contractual inquiries. For Indirect Purchasers, certification was denied primarily for failure to establish a proper choice-of-law for a nationwide class and inadequate support for state-specific subclasses. Additionally, End Payors' related motions for partial summary judgment and to strike expert testimony were denied without prejudice.

AntitrustClass ActionPharmaceuticalsSkelaxinMetaxaloneGeneric DrugClass CertificationIndirect PurchasersEnd PayorsChoice of Law
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of a prior decision concerning a class action alleging an antitrust price-fixing conspiracy by VISA, MasterCard, and their member banks related to foreign currency conversion fees. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, upholding its earlier finding that network defendants did not waive their right to arbitration because compelling arbitration would have been futile under then-existing law. Additionally, the Court denied reconsideration on several other procedural matters, including the creation of subclasses, membership of specific cardholder subclasses, representation of Diners Club and Providian cardholders, and a request for further discovery, citing the untimeliness of new arguments and the plaintiffs' failure to meet the burden of proof for class certification requirements.

Antitrust LitigationClass Action ProcedureArbitration AgreementsWaiver of ArbitrationEquitable EstoppelForeign Currency Conversion FeesReconsideration MotionSherman ActTruth in Lending ActDeceptive Trade Practices
References
43
Case No. Docket No. 74
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Short Sale Antitrust Litigation

Plaintiff Electronic Trading Group L.L.C. (ETG) filed a class action alleging that various financial institutions, including Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, engaged in an antitrust conspiracy related to short sale transactions by fixing borrowing fees and not enforcing delivery of shorted securities. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that federal securities laws implicitly precluded antitrust claims. The Court, applying the Credit Suisse Secs. (USA) LLC v. Billing framework, found that the short sale market is an area squarely within securities regulation with active SEC oversight. It concluded there was a serious conflict between applying antitrust and securities laws, as it could deter lawful conduct and interfere with SEC policy regarding failure-to-deliver. Consequently, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the antitrust claim with prejudice and dismissed the related state law claims without prejudice due to declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Antitrust LawSecurities RegulationShort SalesClass ActionMotion to DismissImplicit PreclusionSherman ActRegulation SHOFiduciary DutyUnjust Enrichment
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mamakos v. Huntington Hospital

Plaintiff, Dr. Mamakos, a plastic surgeon, sued Huntington Hospital and several doctors for antitrust violations (Sherman Act sections 1 and 2), unfair competition, and breach of contract, after being removed from the emergency room on-call roster. This removal stemmed from complaints about his excessive fees. Although his staff privileges were initially threatened, he remained on staff; only his on-call privilege was affected. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the activities did not substantially affect interstate commerce. The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient nexus with interstate commerce for the antitrust claims, and consequently dismissed the pendent state claims as well.

AntitrustSherman ActHospital PrivilegesMedical StaffOn-Call RosterPhysician FeesInterstate CommerceSubject-Matter JurisdictionDismissalGroup Boycott
References
13
Case No. 06-md-1775
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 2013

In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses objections to a Magistrate Judge's directive for partial disclosure of grand jury testimony from John Doe and James Doe, given in a federal investigation into price-fixing in the air cargo industry. District Judge John Gleeson sustained the objections filed by John Doe, James Doe, Airline 1, and Airline 2. The court determined that the Magistrate Judge erred by not adequately balancing the plaintiffs' particularized need for the testimony against the strong policy interest in maintaining grand jury secrecy. Despite the plaintiffs' need for impeachment or recollection refreshing, the court found this did not outweigh concerns about potential retaliation, social stigma, and the protection of witness reputations within the industry. Consequently, the grand jury testimony was ordered not to be disclosed.

Grand Jury SecrecyAntitrust LitigationPrice-fixing ConspiracyWitness Testimony DisclosureFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure 6(e)Douglas Oil StandardParticularized NeedEastern District of New YorkCivil ProcedureMagistrate Judge Order
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neckwear Contractors' Ass'n

This case involves multiple defendants, including associations, a labor union, and individuals, charged with criminal antitrust violations under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act in the ladies' blouse industry across four states. The opinion addresses various motions filed by the defendants. Defendant Strasser's motion to dismiss the indictment, based on claims of insufficient allegations regarding public injury, vagueness, and duplicity, was denied. All defendants' motions for severance, arguing prejudice due to defendant Strasser's alleged unsavory connections, were also denied. Motions for discovery under Rule 16 were largely granted to allow defendants to inspect documents obtained by the Government through seizure or process, while broad 'dragnet' requests under Rule 17(c) were denied. Finally, motions for bills of particulars were partially granted to provide essential information for defense preparation and partially denied to prevent premature disclosure of the Government's evidence, and a motion for leave to make further motions was denied.

Antitrust LawSherman ActConspiracyMonopolizationGroup BoycottCriminal ProcedureDiscovery RulesBills of ParticularsSeverance MotionIndictment Dismissal
References
17
Case No. 1:16-cv-09901-JSR
Regular Panel Decision

In re Propranolol Antitrust Litigation

Plaintiffs, consisting of direct purchasers and end-payors, filed nationwide class actions against multiple pharmaceutical companies alleging an illegal conspiracy to fix the price of the generic drug propranolol. Presiding Judge JED S. RAKOFF, of the Southern District of New York, denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the claims brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, finding sufficient factual allegations to infer a price-fixing conspiracy. However, the court dismissed certain state law antitrust and consumer protection claims due to issues of standing or failure to adequately state a claim under specific state statutes. Conversely, the defendants' motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims was denied. The court also reaffirmed its prior ruling denying dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting that nationwide service of process under the Sherman Act does not violate Fifth Amendment due process given the defendants' national contacts and the efficiency of a joint trial.

AntitrustPrice-fixingGeneric DrugsPropranololClass ActionSherman ActPersonal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsConsumer ProtectionUnjust Enrichment
References
61
Case No. No. 92 Civ. 5130; No. 94 Civ. 3809; No. 92 CV-511
Regular Panel Decision

In re Industrial Diamonds Antitrust Litigation

This consolidated multidistrict litigation addresses antitrust claims brought by purchasers of industrial diamond products. Plaintiffs allege that General Electric Co. and De Beers entities conspired to fix and stabilize prices in violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. The court partially granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3). A class was certified for direct purchasers of list-price products, with the court determining that common questions of conspiracy and impact predominated for this group. The decision outlines a bifurcated trial approach to manage liability and damages, reserving the option to decertify or create subclasses for damages if necessary.

AntitrustClass ActionPrice FixingSherman ActClayton ActMultidistrict LitigationClass CertificationFraudulent ConcealmentIndustrial Diamond ProductsIndirect Purchasers
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation

Plaintiffs Caroline Marks, Maxine Blonstein, and Lois Steward, representing classes of consumers and indirect purchasers of tamoxifen citrate in California, Florida, and Kansas, respectively, originally filed state antitrust and consumer protection claims against defendants Zeneca, Inc., AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, AstraZeneca LP, AstraZeneca PLC (collectively “Zeneca”) and Barr Laboratories, Inc. (“Barr”). The cases were removed to federal court, and plaintiffs now seek to remand them, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants argue for federal question jurisdiction under federal patent law, the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, and collateral attack on federal court orders, as well as diversity jurisdiction for the Marks class action. The Court, applying Second Circuit law, concludes that the plaintiffs' claims necessarily depend on the resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, thus establishing federal question jurisdiction. Therefore, the motions to remand are denied, and the cases remain in federal court.

AntitrustPatent LawFederal Question JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionMultidistrict LitigationHatch-Waxman ActTamoxifenGeneric DrugsSettlement AgreementWell-Pleaded Complaint Rule
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 93 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational