Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, SUPREME COURT DOCKET: Recent decisions, cases, and petitions pending High Court review, (Aug 3, 2016)

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 2016 Term of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Currently, there are two antitrust cases that have been granted review and were consolidated—Visa Inc. v. Osborn (Dkt. 15-961) and Visa Inc. v. Stoumbos (Dkt. 15-962). There are a total of 14 other antitrust and trade regulation cases that are awaiting a determination on whether the Court will grant review or not.

Privacy, TCPA. Bridgeview Health Center is asking the Supreme Court to hold that a "sender" under the 1995 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations is the entity "on whose behalf" a fax is sent, and that such a determination does not require proof of common law agency. Bridgeview seeks review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, which affirmed that an individual was not liable, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), for faxes sent by his marketing company (Bridgeview Health Center, Ltd. v. Clark, Dkt. 16-91).

RICO, injury. Debris-removal services provider Stephen Farmer has asked the Supreme Court to review a decision entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which held that a federal district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to equitably toll the statute of limitations for federal RICO and Louisiana Racketeering Act claims, which Farmer had brought against a contractor and other defendants that allegedly demanded "protection money" for clean-up work that the companies had performed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Farmer asks, in part: (1) whether the Court’s adoption in 1987 by analogy to the antitrust four-year period for the statute of limitations for RICO inferentially carried with it a one-year extension from the termination of the government’s investigation; and (2) whether "due diligence" under equitable tolling includes delay in filing occasioned while a civil RICO plaintiff waits for the government to provide the admissible evidence required for a successful filing of a civil RICO claim for relief (Farmer v. D&O Contractors, Inc., Dkt. 16-94).

RICO, jurisdiction. Archangel Diamond Corporation Liquidating Trust, as successor-in-interest to Archangel Diamond Corp., has petitioned the Supreme Court to review a decision entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver, which affirmed that Archangel could not pursue racketeering claims against Russian oil company OAO Lukoil in Colorado, because Russia was a more appropriate forum. In its petition, Archangel asks: Absent extraordinary circumstances, should federal courts deny forum non conveniens dismissal of an American resident plaintiff’s RICO claims in order to fulfill Congress’ policy that RICO plaintiffs be incentivized through treble damages and attorney fees to act as private attorney generals to remedy serious national problems for which public prosecutorial resources are inadequate (Archangel Diamond Corp. Liquidating Trust v. OAO Lukoil, Dkt. 16-151).

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 2016 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 Privacy RICO