Antitrust/Unfair Competition

The Firm has handled many unfair competition and antitrust matters which have included cases based on allegations of violations of the California Cartwright Act, The Federal Sherman and Clayton Acts, and California Unfair Completion Act (Business and Professions Code §17200 et seq.), and false advertising (Business and Professions Code § 17500 et seq.)  We have tried a number of such cases and have also served as local counsel for regional and national law firms who require our assistance in local litigation.

The following are examples of antitrust/unfair competition litigation handled by the Firm:

• The Firm represented a national grocery store chain in defense of a consumer class action lawsuit against grocery retailers in Southern California for allegedly conspiring to fix the retail price of eggs. The Complaint alleged violations of California's anti-trust and unfair competition laws. After an eight-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of our client.
• The Firm represented a national oil company in defense of a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of 22 million California drivers. The plaintiffs alleged that the nine oil company defendants that sold a new state-mandated cleaner burning gasoline in the State of California conspired to fix the price and restrict the supply of this gasoline. The court granted our motion for summary judgment on behalf of our client. The California Supreme Court later affirmed the granting of summary judgment in a decision now regarded to be the leading case authority in California regarding the applicable standards for summary judgment. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Corp., 25 Cal. 4th 826 (2001).)
• The Firm represented a national window covering manufacturer and two of its subsidiaries in San Diego Superior Court in defense of Cartwright Act claims (price fixing, tying, boycott), and related business torts, brought by a distributor concerning the market for window coverings. Following the completion of discovery, the court granted our motion for summary judgment as to all causes of action and the case was dismissed.
• The Firm was co-counsel with a national law firm representing a national publisher in defense of a nationwide class action brought by a class of school districts claiming damages for violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act (attempt to monopolize in the market) in connection with the provision of magazine subscription fundraising services. After extensive discovery and motion proceedings, the case was resolved by a complex court-approved settlement.
• Our firm, along with a national law firm, represented a group of fifty plaintiff corporations, many of them Fortune 500 companies, in Cartwright Act litigation in San Diego County Superior Court. All plaintiff corporations, predominantly Fortune 500 companies, had opted out of a class action litigation. The clients were large purchasers of copper and copper products (purchases exceeding $2 billion) who sought damages from the defendants for artificially maintaining, stabilizing and fixing the price of copper and copper products. The cases were subsequently settled for in excess of $100 million.
• The Firm, as co-counsel with a national law firm, represented a psychiatric association in which the plaintiffs asserted that the association conspired to increase the diagnoses of Attention Deficient Disorder (ADD) in children in order to increase the sale of the prescription drug Ritalin. Plaintiffs contended that the American Psychiatric Association's role in the alleged conspiracy was the listing of the diagnostic criteria for ADD contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ("DSM"). We filed an anti-SLAPP motion and motions to dismiss which were granted by the federal district court and attorneys fees were awarded to our client. The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed the dismissals and the award of attorneys fees to our client under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The Ninth Circuit's opinion is at Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003).
• The Firm was lead trial counsel for a certified class of purchasers of a dietary supplement (Xenadrine RFA-1), which action was brought for restitution and other remedies under California Business & Professions Code §17200. At the conclusion of the approximately seven-week, non-jury trial, the trial judge found in favor of our client in all respects and awarded restitution of $12 million, in addition to substantial injunctive relief.