In the Matter of Sacramento Ambulance Companies
Plaintiff state charged five defendants, Metropolitan, Superior, Sacramento and Foothill Ambulance Service and 9-1-1 Emergency Services, with violating California’s antitrust law by unlawfully agreeing on customer allocation and pricing of ambulance transport services over a long period. The companies, who admitted no wrongdoing, paid $160,000 in civil penalties, costs and attorneys fees. They were also enjoined from future violations and required to establish a compliance program. The named executives may not participate in ambulance association activities except those involving paramedic or treatment topics.
Minnesota v. Tim Amdahl Chevrolet Co., No. C3-93-676 (Winona Cty. Ct.)
Auto body repair shops fixed prices by providing sham estimates on competitors blank letterhead.
Connecticut v. BPS Petroleum Distributors, Inc., Civ. No. 3:91 CV-00173-PCD (D.Conn. 1991)
Civil settlement accompanying guilty pleas in federal criminal case involving price-fixing on home heating oil.
Oregon, et al. v. Hartzell; 3:96-cv-01783 (D. Or)
This case was based on claims of horizontal price fixing among commercial crab fisherman.
Oregon, et al. v. Mulkey; 3:97-cv-00234-MA
Horizontal price-fixing among commercial crab fishermen.
Louisiana v. Brunswick Bowling and Billiards Dover, Inc., et al. No. 95-CA-797 665 So.2d 520 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1995)
Defendants conspired to fix prices, enforced by a group boycott and price discrimination
Nevada v. Merkley & Hankins 1988 WL 247971 (Nev. Dist. Ct.)
Settlement of gasoline price fixing case.
Natural Gas Antitrust Cases I-IV, JCCP No. 4221, et al. (Sup. Ct. of Cal., San Diego 2000)
California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington investigated El Paso Corporation and other defendants for conspiring to fix the prices of natural gas. In 2003, a $1.5 billion settlement was reached between El Paso Corporation and California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, other California entities, and various class actions.
In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Investigation Litigation, 94 CIV 3996; M.D.L. No. 1023 (S.D.N.Y. 1997); 169 F.R.D. 493 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
Although suit was never filed, the Plaintiff States informally participated in a federal private class action seeking treble damages, reimbursement of costs, attorneys fees and injunctive relief, alleging that the defendant financial investment companies conspired to increase and fix the ?spreads? paid for sales of class securities. The Plaintiff States? focus was to ensure that individual investors and public pension funds were fairly represented in the litigation and settlement.
In re Mid-Atlantic Toyota Antitrust Litigation, 560 F. Supp. 760 (D. Md. 1983); 605 F. Supp 440 (D. Md 1984)
Plaintiff States sought damages, alleging defendant distributors and dealers conspired to set the prices for which Toyota automobiles were sold among various dealerships.
