Legal Opinion

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Stone Container Corp.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided July 28, 2006No. MDL 1261; CIV.A. Nos. 03-5231, 03C-3944PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

*705 MEMORANDUM & ORDER

DuBOIS, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Di*706rected to Plaintiff FAC Acquisition, LLC. Defendants assert that direct action plaintiff FAC Acquisition, LLC (“FAC”) lacks standing to assert claims in this antitrust litigation because FAC never made any direct purchases from defendants and the antitrust claims of entities that did make direct purchases were not validly assigned to FAC. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that FAC does not have standing to assert claims in this litigation and,…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Fireman's Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey v. Raymond DufresneCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
  4. Equimark Commercial Finance Company v. C.I.T. Financial Services Corporation (Formerly Universal C.I.T. Credit Corporation)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
  5. Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority HouseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In Re Linerboard Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API