First, Sherman Act § 1 conspiracy “in restraint of trade” pertaining to fuel surcharges dismissed without prejudice because complaint, “lacks adequate facts concerning how any individual plaintiff was harmed by the alleged conspiracy [i.e., just having to pay the surcharges did not by itself constitute ‘injury’]”. Second, Sherman Act § 2 conspiracy to monopolize dismissed without prejudice because no allegations just against a single Class I defendant Class I railroad (“The very phrase ‘shared monopoly’ is paradoxical”) – “To the extent that plaintiffs have alleged a market structure in which UP [railroad] and BNSF [railroad] each possess and seek to protect market power within the same markets, their monopoly claims based on an alleged agreement to monopolize must fail.”
Oxbow Carbon & Minerals, LLC v. Union Pacific Railroad, 2013 WL 673778 (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, February 26, 2013). Free copy available here.
Before the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
In re: RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
On Petition for Permission to Appeal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). 2012 WL 6018796 (December 3, 2012).
How Interlocutory Appellants-Defendant Railroads Describe the Case:
“Whether interlocutory review is appropriate to resolve one or more of the following class certification issues:
“(1) Whether the district court erroneously certified a class on the ground that common evidence can establish “widespread” injury and damages, notwithstanding the fact that the class contains members who suffered no injury and individualized assessments of Continue reading