Legal Opinion

In Re Tableware Antitrust Litigation

District Court, N.D. California

Decided March 10, 2005No. C-04-3514 VRWPublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

WALKER, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases allege that defendants May Department Stores Co (“May”) and Federated Department Stores, Inc (“Federated”), which operate department stores across the United States, and defendants Lenox, Inc (“Le-nox”) and Waterford Wedgwood, USA (“Waterford”), both of which produce fine tableware sold in the United States, conspired with one another to fix the price of tableware and boycott Bed, Bath and Beyond, a competitor of May and Federated. Plaintiffs bring suit under section 1 of the Sherman Act principally seeking monetary relief.

Defenda…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
  4. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  5. Hughes v. RoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1980

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Hinds County, Miss. v. Wachovia Bank, NADistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010
  2. Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
  3. In Re Packaged Ice Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2010
  4. In Re Hawaiian & Guamanian Cabotage Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2009
  5. Hinds County, Miss. v. Wachovia Bank, NADistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API