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.
Maine v. Aloupis, Benoit, Harris, Lebowitz, Solomon, CV-93-73 (Kennebec Superior Court, 1993)
Five ob-gyns allocated operating room time at local hospital.
Pennsylvania Settlement with United Chair Company
Defendant furniture manufacturer settled claims of bid-rigging on contracts with the state.
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.
Pennsylvania v. Susquehanna Regional Airport Authority, 1-CV-05-1814 (M.D. Pa. 2005)
Regional airport authority sought to take land by eminent domain that was owned by sole competitor to authority’s parking lots.
People of the State of California v. Econolite Control Products, Inc. (Ca. Super Ct. Los Angeles 2004)
Plaintiff state alleged tying of non-proprietary traffic signal equipment to proprietary signal controllers. After trial, final judgment for the state was entered in 2007.
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.
California v. Acme Rotary Broom, No. 05CECL06793 (Cal. Super. Ct. Sept. 2005)
Street sweeping brush manufacturers allegedly set up a territorial allocation scheme and engaged in bid-rigging and solicitation to engage in bid-rigging.
U.S., Connecticut and Texas v. Cingular Wireless Corp., No. 1:04CV01850 (D.D.C. Nov. 3, 2004)
U.S. Department of Justice and Plaintiff States sought to enjoin the acquisition of AT&T Wireless by Cingular Wireless, alleging that the proposed merger would result in higher prices and reduced innovation for consumers of mobile wireless services.
