Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, SUPREME COURT DOCKET: Recent decisions, cases, and petitions pending High Court review, (Nov 25, 2014)

This Antitrust Law Daily feature presents a chart highlighting the decisions, arguments, briefs, and petitions on antitrust and trade regulation issues before the October 2014 Term of the U.S. Supreme Court.

To date, there are 10 antitrust and trade regulation cases docketed for the October 2014 term, and the Court has agreed to hear three of them, relating to antitrust. Eight other cases—involving acquisitions and mergers, advertising, antitrust, consumer protection, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act—were denied certiorari.

In Infanti v. Scharpf, the former President and CEO of a chair manufacturing company is seeking U.S. Supreme Court guidance on the proper scope of standing under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The U.S. Court of Appeals in New York previously held that the former CEO lacked standing to bring a civil RICO suit because any alleged injuries were inflicted on his corporation, not on him. The petitioner asks whether he suffered an injury to “business or property” by reason of a violation of RICO, such that he would have standing to bring suit under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

In United National Maintenance, Inc. v. San Diego Convention Center, Inc., a trade show cleaning services vendor has filed a petition for certiorari, seeking review of a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, affirming a grant of judgment as a matter of law on its antitrust claim against the San Diego Convention Center. The petitioner asks whether: (1) the clear articulation test is satisfied where the California legislature authorized San Diego to create a commission that would manage the use of the convention center and (2) whether the convention center commission was a private actor that would satisfy the active supervision test because its board of directors included business leaders and because it competed in the San Diego market for trade show cleaning services.

In Panasonic Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Panasonic Corp. is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the “continuing conspiracy” and “speculative damages” exceptions to the Clayton Act’s four-year statute of limitations in the context of Samsung Electronic Co.’s antitrust challenge to standard-setting and patent licensing agreements involving SD flash memory card technology. Panasonic is seeking High Court review in an effort to block as untimely Samsung’s antitrust suit, which was revived by the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco last April.

In In re Managed Care Litigation, health care providers are seeking Supreme Court review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta, which found that releases in nearly decade-old class action settlement agreements, precluded them from asserting federal antitrust claims based on conduct occurring years after the settlement agreements terminated. The medical providers present the following questions: (1) whether a settlement agreement in a class action waives all class members’ rights to pursue statutory remedies for the defendant’s future violations of the federal antitrust laws, or whether such a waiver is void because it violates the antitrust laws or public policy and (2) whether a federal antitrust cause of action can be asserted before the occurrence of the acts and injuries from which the cause of action arises, or does the cause of action accrue when the plaintiff is injured.

In Carpenter Co. v. Ace Foam, Inc., manufacturers of flexible polyurethane foam have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the appropriate standards for class certification. They ask: (1) whether the standing requirements under Article III apply to all members of a class certified under Rule 23 and (2) whether certifying a class under Rule 23(b) (3) is proper where individualized damages issues predominate, and where plaintiffs rely exclusively on aggregate damages models that calculate damages purportedly incurred by the class as a whole, rather than by individual class members.

Lastly, in Dean Foods Co. v. Food Lion, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to disturb a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, reversing summary judgment in favor of defendants Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Dean Foods Co., and National Dairy Holdings, L.P. in a class action, alleging a conspiracy to restrict the supply of milk.

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 2014 term. Issued opinions, granted petitions, and pending petitions are listed separately, along with a summary of the questions presented and the current status of the case.

News: Advertising AcquisitionsMergers Antitrust ConsumerProtection RICO StateUnfairTradePractices