DOCSLIB.ORG

Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 164 Filed 07/02/21 Page 1 of 27 Page ID #:20520 1 Daniel Hutchinson (Bar No. 239458) [email protected] 2 Lin Y. Chan (Bar No. 255027) [email protected] 3 LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 4 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 5 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 6 Julian Burns King (Bar No. 298617) 7 [email protected] Elliot J. Siegel (Bar No. 286798) 8 [email protected] KING & SIEGEL LLP 9 724 S. Spring Street, Suite 201 Los Angeles, California 90014 10 Telephone: (213) 419-5101 Facsimile: (213) 465-4803 11 Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 MARCIE LE and KAREN DAO, Case No. 8:18-cv-01548 individually and on behalf of all others 17 similarly situated, PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR 18 Plaintiffs, ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 19 v. Hon. David O. Carter 20 WALGREEN CO., an Illinois corporation; WALGREEN Hearing Date: August 2, 2021 21 PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. LLC, an Illinois limited liability 22 company; and WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, a Delaware corporation, 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01548 Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 164 Filed 07/02/21 Page 2 of 27 Page ID #:20521 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION .................................................................. vi 4 I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 5 II. THE WORK UNDERTAKEN BY PLAINTIFFS .......................................... 2 6 A. Class Counsel undertook substantial pre-litigation investigation ......... 2 B. Class Counsel engaged in substantial discovery efforts on 7 behalf of the Class ................................................................................. 2 1. Class Counsel conducted substantial written and 8 document discovery .................................................................... 2 9 2. Class Counsel undertook a large amount of expert discovery ..................................................................................... 3 10 3. Class Counsel took and defended 11 depositions ...................... 4 11 C. Class Counsel vigorously litigated the issue of class certification ........................................................................................... 4 12 D. This case required extensive work by the Class Representatives ......... 5 13 III. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 6 14 A. Class Counsel’s fee request is reasonable ............................................. 6 1. Class Counsel achieved exceptional results for the Class .......... 8 15 2. This case posed enormous risks and challenges ......................... 9 16 3. Class Counsel’s litigation on a contingency basis supports the fee request ........................................................................... 11 17 4. The burdens faced by Class Counsel support the fee 18 request ....................................................................................... 12 5. An award of one-third (or more) of the common fund is 19 typical in similar cases .............................................................. 12 6. A lodestar cross-check confirms the reasonableness of the 20 requested fees ............................................................................ 14 21 B. Class Counsel requests reimbursement of reasonable out-of- pocket expenses for representing the Class ........................................ 15 22 C. Plaintiffs request that Class Representatives be awarded reasonable service awards to compensate them for their 23 dedication to this case ......................................................................... 17 24 IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 19 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, - i - EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01548 Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 164 Filed 07/02/21 Page 3 of 27 Page ID #:20522 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page 3 CASES 4 Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., 5 2 Cal. 5th 257 (2016) ............................................................................................ 10 Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., 6 306 F.R.D. 245 (N.D. Cal. 2015)............................................................................ 8 7 Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 8 444 U.S. 472 (1980) ................................................................................................ 6 Bond v. Ferguson Enters., Inc., 9 No. 09-cv-1662, 2011 WL 2648879 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2011) ........................... 18 10 Boyd v. Bank of Am. Corp., 11 No. 13-cv-0561, 2014 WL 6473804 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2014) .......................... 12 Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 12 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012) ........................................................................................ 10 13 Brulee v. DAL Glob. Servs., LLC, 14 No. 17-cv-6433, 2018 WL 6616659 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2018) .................... 12, 18 Canh Le v. DIRECTV, LLC, 15 No. 16-cv-1369, 2018 WL 5928192 (C.D. Cal. May 15, 2018) .......................... 15 16 Carlotti v. ASUS Computer Int’l, 17 No. 18-cv-3369, 2020 WL 3414653 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2020) .......................... 15 Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., 18 162 Cal. App. 4th 43 (2008) ................................................................................. 12 19 Chu v. Wells Fargo Invs., LLC, 20 No. 05-cv-4526, 2011 WL 672645 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2011) ............................ 18 Chun-Hoon v. McKee Foods Corp., 21 716 F. Supp. 2d 848 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .................................................................. 14 22 Cicero v. DirecTV, Inc., 23 No. 07-cv-1182, 2010 WL 2991486 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2010) ........................... 13 Deaver v. Compass Bank, 24 No. 13-cv-0222, 2015 WL 8526982 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2015) .......................... 10 25 Epstein v. Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest, LLC, 26 No. 19-cv-1323 (C.D. Cal. 2019) ................................................................... 13, 18 Frausto v. Bank of America, N.A., 27 334 F.R.D. 192 (N.D. Cal. 2019).......................................................................... 10 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, - ii - EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01548 Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 164 Filed 07/02/21 Page 4 of 27 Page ID #:20523 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 (continued) Page 3 Garner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 08-cv-1365, 2010 WL 1687832 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010) .......................... 18 4 Goodwin v. Citywide Home Loans, Inc., 5 No. 14-cv-0866, 2015 WL 12868143 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2015) .......................... 14 6 Greater L.A. Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. Krikorian Premiere Theatres, LLC, No. 13-cv-7172, 2015 WL 12656272 (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2015) ........................ 15 7 Harris v. Marhoefer, 8 24 F.3d 16 (9th Cir. 1994) .................................................................................... 15 9 Hopkins v. Stryker Sales Corp., No. 11-cv-2786, 2013 WL 496358 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2013) .............................. 11 10 In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., 11 No. 07-cv-5944, 2016 WL 183285 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2016) ............................. 15 12 In re Heritage Bond Litig., No. 02-ML-1475, 2005 WL 1594389 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2005) .......................... 8 13 In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., 14 No. 13-md-2420, 2018 WL 3064391 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2018) ......................... 15 15 In re Media Vision Tech. Secs. Litig., 913 F. Supp. 1362 (N.D. Cal. 1996) ..................................................................... 16 16 In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 17 213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 12, 18 18 In re Omnivision Techs., Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ........................................................ 7, 9, 15 19 In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 20 779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 7, 11, 14 21 In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1995) .................................................................................... 9 22 In re Portal Software, Inc. Sec. Litig., 23 No. 03-cv-5138, 2007 WL 4171201 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2007) .......................... 15 24 In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................ 11 25 Ingalls v. Hallmark Mktg. Corp., 26 No. 08-cv-4342, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131078 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2009) ....... 13 27 Laffitte v. Robert Half International, Inc., 1 Cal. 5th 480 (2016) ..................................................................................... passim 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, - iii - EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. 8:18-cv-01548 Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 164 Filed 07/02/21 Page 5 of 27 Page ID #:20524 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 (continued) Page 3 Lee v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 13-cv-00511 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2014) .......................................................... 8 4 Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 5 151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1998) .............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conditional Approval #312 May 1999
    Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks Washington, DC 20219 Conditional Approval #312 May 1999 DECISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY ON THE APPLICATION TO CHARTER NEXTBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA MAY 8, 1999 I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL On December 10, 1998, NextCard, Inc., San Francisco, California (“NCI”), filed an application with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to charter a new national credit card bank as specified in the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987, as amended (CEBA). The proposed bank will be headquartered in San Francisco, California, and will be titled NextBank, National Association (“Bank”).1 The Bank has applied to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) for deposit insurance and will apply to become a member of the Federal Reserve System. The Bank has also filed an operating subsidiary application with the OCC to own and operate NextCard Funding Corp. (“NFC”), a Delaware corporation that is currently wholly-owned by NCI. The applications have been supplemented from time to time with additional or amended information. No comments were received from the public regarding these applications. NCI, formerly called Internet Access Financial Corporation, launched the NextCard VISA card in December 1997. The product, which NCI calls the First True Internet VISA, is marketed to consumers exclusively through its Web site, www.nextcard.com. The NextCard can be used for both online and offline purchases and offers several product and service enhancements specifically designed for the Internet-enabled consumer. These include a customized application process, Internet-based account management, and online shopping enhancements.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Merchants 4
    Merchant Name Date Registered Merchant Name Date Registered Merchant Name Date Registered 9001575*ARUBA SPA 05/02/2018 9013807*HBC SRL 05/02/2018 9017439*FRATELLI CARLI SO 05/02/2018 9001605*AGENZIA LAMPO SRL 05/02/2018 9013943*CASA EDITRICE LIB 05/02/2018 9017440*FRATELLI CARLI SO 05/02/2018 9003338*ARUBA SPA 05/02/2018 9014076*MAILUP SPA 05/02/2018 9017441*FRATELLI CARLI SO 05/02/2018 9003369*ARUBA SPA 05/02/2018 9014276*CCS ITALIA ONLUS 05/02/2018 9017442*FRATELLI CARLI SO 05/02/2018 9003946*GIUNTI EDITORE SP 05/02/2018 9014368*EDITORIALE IL FAT 05/02/2018 9017574*PULCRANET SRL 05/02/2018 9004061*FREDDY SPA 05/02/2018 9014569*SAVE THE CHILDREN 05/02/2018 9017575*PULCRANET SRL 05/02/2018 9004904*ARUBA SPA 05/02/2018 9014616*OXFAM ITALIA 05/02/2018 9017576*PULCRANET SRL 05/02/2018 9004949*ELEMEDIA SPA 05/02/2018 9014762*AMNESTY INTERNATI 05/02/2018 9017577*PULCRANET SRL 05/02/2018 9004972*ARUBA SPA 05/02/2018 9014949*LIS FINANZIARIA S 05/02/2018 9017578*PULCRANET SRL 05/02/2018 9005242*INTERSOS ASSOCIAZ 05/02/2018 9015096*FRATELLI CARLI SO 05/02/2018 9017676*PIERONI ROBERTO 05/02/2018 9005281*MESSAGENET SPA 05/02/2018 9015228*MEDIA SHOPPING SP 05/02/2018 9017907*ESITE SOCIETA A R 05/02/2018 9005607*EASY NOLO SPA 05/02/2018 9015229*SILVIO BARELLO 05/02/2018 9017955*LAV LEGA ANTIVIVI 05/02/2018 9006680*PERIODICI SAN PAO 05/02/2018 9015245*ASSURANT SERVICES 05/02/2018 9018029*MEDIA ON SRL 05/02/2018 9007043*INTERNET BOOKSHOP 05/02/2018 9015286*S.O.F.I.A.
    [Show full text]
  • May Your Drug Price Be Evergreen
    Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 590–647 doi:10.1093/jlb/lsy022 Advance Access Publication 7 December 2018 Original Article May your drug price be evergreen ∗,1 Robin Feldman Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/5/3/590/5232981 by Elsevier user on 30 October 2020 Hastings College of the Law, University of California, 200 McAllister St. San Francisco, CA 94102, USA Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT Presenting the first comprehensive study of evergreening, this article ex- amines the extent to which evergreening behavior—which can be defined as artificially extending the protection cliff—may contribute to theprob- lem. The author analyses all drugs on the market between 2005 and 2015, combing through 60,000 data points to examine every instance in which a company added a new patent or exclusivity. The results show a startling departure from the classic conceptualization of intellectual property pro- tection for pharmaceuticals. Rather than creating new medicines, pharma- ceutical companies are largely recycling and repurposing old ones. Specifi- cally, 78% of the drugs associated with new patents were not new drugs, but ∗ Robin Feldman is the Arthur J. Goldberg Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Institute for Innovation Law at the University of California Hastings. Her most recent books in the life sciences are Drug Wars (Cambridge) and Rethinking Patent Law (Harvard). Professor Feldman also has published more than 50 articles in law journals including at Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, as well as in the American Economic Review and the New England Journal of Medicine. Professor Feldman’s empirical work has been cited by the White House and numerous federal agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • A GUIDE to ELECTION YEAR ACTIVITIES of SECTION 501(C)(3) ORGANIZATIONS
    A GUIDE TO ELECTION YEAR ACTIVITIES OF SECTION 501(c)(3) ORGANIZATIONS BY STEVEN H. SHOLK, ESQ. STEVEN H. SHOLK, ESQ. GIBBONS P.C. ONE GATEWAY CENTER NEWARK, NEW JERSEY 07102-5310 (973) 596-4639 [email protected] ONE PENNSYLVANIA PLAZA 37th FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10119-3701 (212) 613-2000 Copyright Steven H. Sholk 2016 All Rights Reserved 776148.37 999999-00262 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATUTORY PROVISIONS ON CONTRIBUTIONS, EXPENDITURES, AND ELECTIONEERING ......................................................................................................... 1 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO AND FUNDRAISING FOR SECTION 501(c)(3) ORGANIZATIONS ................................ 159 REGULATORY PROVISIONS ON CONTRIBUTIONS, EXPENDITURES, AND ELECTIONEERING ..................................................................................................... 191 VOTER REGISTRATION AND GET-OUT-THE-VOTE DRIVES........................................ 315 VOTER GUIDES....................................................................................................................... 326 CANDIDATE APPEARANCES AND ADVERTISEMENTS ................................................ 339 CANDIDATE DEBATES ......................................................................................................... 352 CANDIDATE USE OF FACILITIES AND OTHER ASSETS ................................................ 355 WEBSITE ACTIVITIES ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Case: 13-16918, 05/30/2014, ID: 9114889, Dktentry: 78-1, Page 1 of 64
    Case: 13-16918, 05/30/2014, ID: 9114889, DktEntry: 78-1, Page 1 of 64 Case No. 13-16819 (Consolidated with Nos. 13-16918, 13-16919, 13-16929, 13-16936, 13-17028, 13-17097) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANGEL FRALEY, ET AL., Plaintiffs and Appellees, C.M.D., ET AL., Intervenors, Plaintiffs, and Appellees, JO BATMAN, ET AL., Objectors and Appellants v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant and Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California No. 11-cv-0126, Hon. Richard Seeborg, presiding ANSWERING BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES SUSAN MAINZER, ET AL. THE ARNS LAW FIRM JONATHAN JAFFE LAW Robert S. Arns (SBN 65071) Jonathan M. Jaffe, Esq. (SBN 267012) 3055 Hillegass Avenue Jonathan E. Davis (SBN 191346) Berkeley, CA 94705 Steven R. Weinmann (SBN 190956) Telephone: (510) 725-4293 515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 495-7800 Facsimile: (415) 495-7888 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Case: 13-16918, 05/30/2014, ID: 9114889, DktEntry: 78-1, Page 2 of 64 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ............................................................. 1 II. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 III. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................... 7 IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................. 10 A. Background ................................................................................................. 10 B. Settlement Negotiations
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Wood1 I. Introduction Microtransactions Are Generally
    ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ RIGGING THE GAME: THE LEGALITY OF RANDOM CHANCE PURCHASES (“LOOT BOXES”) UNDER CURRENT MASSACHUSETTS GAMBLING LAW Thomas Wood1 I. Introduction Microtransactions are generally defined as any additional payment made in a video game after the customer makes an original purchase.2 Over time, microtransactions have increased in prominence and are featured today in many free-to-play mobile games.3 However, some video game developers, to the outrage of consumers, have decided to include microtransactions in PC and console games, which already require an upfront $60 retail payment.4 Consumer advocacy groups have increasingly criticized Microtransactions as unfair to 1 J.D. Candidate, Suffolk University Law School, 2020; B.S. in Criminal Justice and minor in Political Science, University of Massachusetts Lowell, 2017. Thomas Wood can be reached at [email protected]. 2 See Eddie Makuch, Microtransactions, Explained: Here's What You Need To Know, GAMESPOT (Nov. 20, 2018), archived at https://perma.cc/TUX6-D9WL (defining microtransactions as “anything you pay extra for in a video game outside of the initial purchase”); see also Microtransaction, URBAN DICTIONARY (Oct. 29, 2018), archived at https://perma.cc/XS7R-Z4TT (describing microtransactions sarcastically as a “method that game companies use to make the consumer’s wallets burn” and “the cancer of modern gaming”). 3 See Mike Williams, The Harsh History of Gaming Microtransactions: From Horse Armor to Loot Boxes, USGAMER (Oct. 11, 2017), archived at https://perma.cc/PEY6-SFL2 (outlining how the loot box model was originally created in Asia through MMOs and free-to-play games); see also Loot Boxes Games, GIANT BOMB (Nov.
    [Show full text]
  • Attendee Bios
    ATTENDEE BIOS Ejim Peter Achi, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig Ejim Achi represents private equity sponsors in connection with buyouts, mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures, restructurings and other investments spanning a wide range of industries and sectors, with particular emphasis on technology, healthcare, industrials, consumer packaged goods, hospitality and infrastructure. Rukaiyah Adams, Chief Investment Officer, Meyer Memorial Trust Rukaiyah Adams is the chief investment officer at Meyer Memorial Trust, one of the largest charitable foundations in the Pacific Northwest. She is responsible for leading all investment activities to ensure the long-term financial strength of the organization. Throughout her tenure as chief investment officer, Adams has delivered top quartile performance; and beginning in 2017, her team hit its stride delivering an 18.6% annual return, which placed her in the top 5% of foundation and endowment CIOs. Under the leadership of Adams, Meyer increased assets managed by diverse managers by more than threefold, to 40% of all assets under management, and women managers by tenfold, to 25% of AUM, proving that hiring diverse managers is not a concessionary practice. Before joining Meyer, Adams ran the $6.5 billion capital markets fund at The Standard, a publicly traded company. At The Standard, she oversaw six trading desks that included several bond strategies, preferred equities, derivatives and other risk mitigation strategies. Adams is the chair of the prestigious Oregon Investment Council, the board that manages approximately $100 billion of public pension and other assets for the state of Oregon. During her tenure as chair, the Oregon state pension fund has been the top-performing public pension fund in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit 4 Case 5:18-Cv-06164-EJD Document 88-4 Filed 09/28/20 Page 2 of 11
    Case 5:18-cv-06164-EJD Document 88-4 Filed 09/28/20 Page 1 of 11 Exhibit 4 Case 5:18-cv-06164-EJD Document 88-4 Filed 09/28/20 Page 2 of 11 All dollar amounts are in millions Primary Cross-Check % of Common Multiplier Case Name Cite Judge Fee Order Date Case Type Fee $ Approved Calculation Common Fund $ Lodestar $ Method Fund Approved Approved Method Craft v. Cty. of San 1 Bernardino,, 1124 624 F. Supp. 2d 1113 Stephen G. Larson April 1, 2008 Civil Rights $ 6.375 CF Lodestar $ 25.648 25% $ 1.200 5.20 2 Kurihara v. Best Buy Co. 2010 WL 11575623 Marilyn Hall Patel April 1, 2010 Wage & Hour $ 0.898 Lodestar $ 5.000 6% $ 0.718 1.25 Garner v. State Farm Breach od 3 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 2010 WL 1687829 Claudia Wilken April 22, 2010 Contract $ 4.500 CF Lodestar $ 15.000 30% <2 4 Briggs v. United States 2010 WL 1759457 William Alsup April 30, 2010 debt collection $ 1.120 Lodestar $ 7.400 $ 1.119 1.00 Privay/Data 5 Lane v. Facebook, Inc. 2010 WL 2076916 Richard Seeborg May 24, 2010 Breach $ 2.322 Lodestar $ 9.510 24% $ 1.161 2.00 6 In re LDK Solar Sec. Litig. 2010 WL 3001384 William Alsup July 29, 2010 Securities $ 16.000 $ 16.000 13.75% $ 7.600 0.29 In re WAL–MART STORES, INC. WAGE AND 7 HOUR LITIGATION 2011 WL 31266 Saundra Brown Armstrong January 5, 2011 Wage & Hour $ 23.220 CF Lodestar $86-$43 27% of ceiling ~$16.6 1.40 Chu v.
    [Show full text]
  • US V. Visa USA Inc., Visa International Corp., and Mastercard International
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Plaintiff,: : 98 Civ. 7076 (BSJ) : v. : Decision : VISA U.S.A. INC., : VISA INTERNATIONAL CORP., and : MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL : U.S. District Court INCORPORATED, : Filed 10-9-2001 : S.D.of N.Y. Defendants. : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x BARBARA S. JONES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE INTRODUCTION This civil action was brought by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., against the defendants, VISA U.S.A. INC., (“Visa U.S.A.”), VISA INTERNATIONAL CORP., (“Visa International”) (collectively “Visa”) and MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, (“MasterCard”). It involves the U.S. credit and charge card industry, which has only four significant network services competitors: American Express, a publicly owned corporation; Discover, a corporation owned by Morgan Stanley Dean Witter; and the defendants Visa and MasterCard, which are joint ventures, each owned by associations of thousands of banks. The Government claims, in two counts, that each of the defendants is in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which provides that “every contract, combination in the 1 form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States ... is declared to be illegal.” 15 U.S.C. § 1. Count One centers around the governance rules of Visa and MasterCard, which permit members of each association to sit on the Board of Directors of either Visa or MasterCard, although they may not sit on both. Count Two targets the associations’ exclusionary rules, under which members of each association are able to issue credit or charge cards of the other association, but may not offer American Express or Discover cards.
    [Show full text]
  • Boletín Fármacos: Ética Y Derecho
    Boletín Fármacos: Ética y Derecho Boletín electrónico para fomentar el acceso y el uso adecuado de medicamentos http://www.saludyfarmacos.org/boletin-farmacos/ Publicado por Salud y Fármacos Volumen 23, número 3, agosto 2020 Boletín Fármacos es un boletín electrónico de la organización Salud y Fármacos que se publica cuatro veces al año: el último día de cada uno de los siguientes meses: febrero, mayo, agosto y noviembre. Editores Equipo de Traductores Núria Homedes Beguer, EE.UU. Núria Homedes, EE UU Antonio Ugalde, EE.UU. Enrique Muñoz Soler, España Antonio Ugalde, EE.UU. Asesores de Ética Maria Cristina Latorre, Colombia Claudio Lorenzo, Brasil Andrea Carolina Reyes Rojas, Colombia Jan Helge Solbakk, Noruega Jaime Escobar, Colombia Editores Asociados Corina Bontempo Duca de Freitas, Brasil Asesores en Ensayos Clínicos Albin Chaves, Costa Rica Juan Erviti, España Hernán Collado, Costa Rica Gianni Tognoni, Italia Francisco Debesa García, Cuba Emma Verástegui, México Anahí Dresser, México Claude Verges, Panamá José Humberto Duque, Colombia Albert Figueras, España Asesor en Publicidad y Promoción Sergio Gonorazky, Argentina Adriane Fugh-Berman Alejandro Goyret, Uruguay Eduardo Hernández, México Corresponsales Luis Justo, Argentina Rafaela Sierra, Centro América Óscar Lanza, Bolivia Steven Orozco Arcila, Colombia René Leyva, México Raquel Abrantes, Brasil Duilio Fuentes, Perú Benito Marchand, Ecuador Webmaster Gabriela Minaya, Perú People Walking Bruno Schlemper Junior, Brasil Xavier Seuba, España Federico Tobar, Panamá Francisco Rossi, Colombia Boletín Fármacos solicita comunicaciones, noticias, y artículos de investigación sobre cualquier tema relacionado con el acceso y uso de medicamentos; incluyendo temas de farmacovigilancia; políticas de medicamentos; ensayos clínicos; ética y medicamentos; dispensación y farmacia; comportamiento de la industria; prácticas recomendables y prácticas cuestionadas de uso y promoción de medicamentos.
    [Show full text]
  • Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Case No
    Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 163 Filed 07/02/21 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:20213 1 Julian Burns King (Bar No. 298617) [email protected] 2 Elliot J. Siegel (Bar No. 286798) 3 [email protected] KING & SIEGEL LLP 4 724 S. Spring Street, Ste. 201 5 Los Angeles, California 90014 Telephone: (213) 465-4802 6 Facsimile: (213) 465-4803 7 8 Daniel Hutchinson (Bar No. 239458) [email protected] 9 Lin Y. Chan (Bar No. 255027) 10 [email protected] LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & 11 BERNSTEIN, LLP 12 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 13 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 Marcie Le and Karen Dao, individu- Case No. 8:18-cv-01548-DOC (ADSx) ally and on behalf of all others similarly 19 Hon. David O. Carter situated, 20 Special Master Hon. Jay C. Gandhi (Ret.) Plaintiffs, 21 v. PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF 22 Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation; MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR 23 Walgreen Pharmacy Services Mid- west, LLC, an Illinois limited liability FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS 24 company; and Walgreens Boots Alli- ACTION SETTLEMENT 25 ance, a Delaware corporation, [Declarations of Elliot J. Siegel, Daniel Defendants. M. Hutchinson, and Bryan Valdez; 26 [Proposed] Order filed concurrently] 27 Hearing Date: August 2, 2021 Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. 28 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 8:18-CV-01548 Case 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS Document 163 Filed 07/02/21 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:20214 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on August 2, 2021 at 8:30 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Amended Motion to Disseminate September
    2:12-cv-00103-MOB-MKM Doc # 527 Filed 09/14/16 Pg 1 of 26 Pg ID 17866 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION : No. 12-md-02311 : Hon. Marianne O. Battani IN RE: WIRE HARNESS : Case No. 2:12-cv-00103 IN RE: INSTRUMENT PANEL CLUSTERS : Case No. 2:12-cv-00203 IN RE: FUEL SENDERS : Case No. 2:12-cv-00303 IN RE: HEATER CONTROL PANELS : Case No. 2:12-cv-00403 IN RE: BEARINGS : Case No. 2:12-cv-00503 IN RE: OCCUPANT SAFETY SYSTEMS : Case No. 2:12-cv-00603 IN RE: ALTERNATORS : Case No. 2:13-cv-00703 IN RE: ANTI-VIBRATIONAL RUBBER PARTS : Case No. 2:13-cv-00803 IN RE: WINDSHIELD WIPERS : Case No. 2:13-cv-00903 IN RE: RADIATORS : Case No. 2:13-cv-01003 IN RE: STARTERS : Case No. 2:13-cv-01103 IN RE: SWITCHES : Case No. 2:13-cv-01303 IN RE: IGNITION COILS : Case No. 2:13-cv-01403 IN RE: MOTOR GENERATORS : Case No. 2:13-cv-01503 IN RE: STEERING ANGLE SENSORS : Case No. 2:13-cv-01603 IN RE: HID BALLASTS : Case No. 2:13-cv-01703 IN RE: INVERTERS : Case No. 2:13-cv-01803 IN RE: ELECTRONIC POWERED STEERING ASSEMBLIES : Case No. 2:13-cv-01903 IN RE: AIR FLOW METERS : Case No. 2:13-cv-02003 IN RE: FAN MOTORS : Case No. 2:13-cv-02103 IN RE: FUEL INJECTION SYSTEMS : Case No. 2:13-cv-02203 IN RE: POWER WINDOW MOTORS : Case No.
    [Show full text]