In re Tableware Antitrust Litigation
District Court, N.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
WALKER, Chief Judge.
Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases allege that May Department Stores Co. (“May”) and Federated Department Stores, Inc (“Federated”), which operate department stores across the United States, and Lenox, Inc (“Lenox”) and Waterford Wedgwood, USA (“Waterford”), both of which produce fine tableware sold in the United States, conspired with one another to boycott Bed, Bath and Beyond, a competitor of May and Federated. Plaintiffs bring suit under § 1 of the Sherman Act, alleging that defendants’ conduct is condemned per se. By separate order, the court has denied…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- David Hanon v. Dataproducts Corporation Jack C. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Blackie v. BarrackCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Chavez v. Blue Sky Natural Beverage Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2010
- Kanawi v. Bechtel Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2008
- Ross v. American Express Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 2010
- In re Live Concert Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2007
- In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 2009
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.