Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, SUPREME COURT DOCKET: Recent decisions, cases, and petitions pending High Court review, (Oct 14, 2015)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

This Antitrust Law Daily feature presents a chart highlighting the decisions, arguments, briefs, and petitions on antitrust and trade regulation issues before the 2015 Term of the U.S. Supreme Court.

To date, there are 11 antitrust and trade regulation cases that are awaiting Supreme Court Review. Since the opening of the October 2015 term, the Court has granted summary disposition in one advertising case; granted review in three other cases involving advertising, privacy, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); and denied review in five cases concerning advertising, antitrust, franchising & distribution, and RICO.

Mootness of TCPA claims. Campbell-Ewald Co., a marketing consulting company for the U.S. Navy, argued before the Supreme Court today in favor of overturning a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which found Campbell-Ewald could be vicariously liable under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by allowing a third-party vendor to send unsolicited text messages. Campbell-Ewald’s arguments focused on the question: whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the plaintiff receives an offer of complete relief on his claims. According to Campbell-Ewald, “when the offer of complete relief is made and when a court has determined that it is, indeed, for complete relief, then the case has come to an end.” The point is, according to the consulting company, that “when the defendant has offered everything, the courts can’t go ahead and expound on the law” (Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, Dkt. 14-857).

Fraud conspiracy, statute of limitations. Three former UBS AG executives are challenging a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City that declined to overturn their conviction for participating in a conspiracy to commit wire fraud related to bidding on contracts for the investment of municipal bond proceeds. They ask whether 18 U.S.C. §3293(2), which extends the statute of limitations for mail or wire fraud from five to ten years if the fraud “affects a financial institution,” applies where the defendant is a bank employee, the bank is a culpable actor, and the alleged effect is that the bank made payments to settle, or incurred legal fees to defend, certain civil, regulatory and criminal actions. In other words, they ask whether the statute applies where the bank “affects itself” (Heinz v. U.S., Dkt. 15-432).

Franchising, attorney misfeasance. A hotel franchisee is seeking review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, which affirmed a district court’s denial of the franchisee’s motion to set aside a default judgment. The franchisee’s attorneys’ misfeasance did not justify reopening the judgment, the appellate court determined. In its petition, the franchisee asks: (1) whether abandonment by an attorney may provide a basis for relief in a monetary civil action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6); and (2) whether a client is obligated to diligently follow his own case when he is unknowingly relying on the misrepresentation of his attorney (Grover v. Choice Hotels International, Inc., Dkt. 15-443).

For details about these and other petitions and cases pending before the Supreme Court, please consult the chart of antitrust and trade regulation cases awaiting decision in the 2015 term. Issued opinions, granted petitions, pending petitions, and denied petitions are listed separately, along with a summary of the questions presented and the current status of each case.

News: Antitrust FranchisingDistribution Privacy