Our attorneys have significant experience in antitrust and unfair competition matters, including price-fixing, price discrimination, monopolization, and non-competition disputes. Our clients range from individuals to national media conglomerates, from food and beverage manufacturers to the world’s leading high-end thrill ride designer. We have experience litigating claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Robinson-Patman Act, and California’s antitrust and unfair competition laws. Our attorneys regularly write, speak, and consult on competition matters; they are regarded as leaders in the field.
Some of our lawyers’ representative antitrust and unfair competition matters include:
- Securing a complete defense summary judgment and victory on appeal for the leading designer and seller in the United States of “mega-coasters” and cutting-edge theme park rides. The Firm was hired to take over the case after the prior firm had lost several significant motions and a prior action for the client, which was the basis of some of the claims against the client. The plaintiff, represented by one of the country’s top antitrust plaintiff’s firms, sought almost $20 million in damages. The win was especially impressive because the same trial court (in a prior action) had issued an order finding that our client had engaged in fraud on the patent office.
- Defeating a proposed class action brought by plaintiff wholesalers alleging violation of the federal Robinson-Patman Act and California state laws. The Firm was engaged in the middle of discovery after the prior firm had suffered several adverse decisions, including the striking of our client’s affirmative defenses and adverse discovery rulings. We took over discovery and handled all the briefing and argument at class certification. We defeated plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and subsequent Rule 23(f) application to the Ninth Circuit. The case was resolved days before trial on favorable terms for the Firm’s client for a fraction of the damages sought.
- Successfully representing Blockbuster, its parent company Viacom, and Viacom’s controlling shareholder, Sumner Redstone, in a proposed class action brought by independent video rental stores against the clients and the major movie studios. The lawsuit alleged that Blockbuster and the studios conspired with each other to deny independent retailers the same favorable terms and conditions the studios provided to Blockbuster. Defendants obtained summary adjudication against the plaintiffs’ conspiracy claim under California’s Cartwright Act, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal in a published decision. In a prior, companion federal action, defendants defeated class certification of the Sherman Act and Robinson-Patman Act claims and, at the close of plaintiffs’ case-in-chief, were granted a Rule 50 judgment. The Fifth Circuit upheld all of the trial court’s rulings.