Connecticut v. Connecticut Oxygen Corp., 1986-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 66,951 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1986)
State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, Connecticut Oxygen Corporation, fixed the prices and exchanged pricing information for medical gas supplies.
Arizona v. Arizona Radiological Society; 1979-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 62,683
State sought injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, Arizona Radiological Society established bylaw and policy statements requiring members to work only on a fee-for-service basis.
California v. Levi Strauss & Co., No. S.F. No. 24699 (Cal. 1996)
The State of California sought damages, administrative costs and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, Levi Strauss & Co. (Levi) conspired to fix the price of its jeans, thus resulting in overcharges to consumers during the 1970’s
Hawaii v. Gannett Pacific Corp., 99 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Haw. 1999)
State sought to enjoin Defendant newspaper companies from closing down a newspaper, alleging that the closure of the newspaper would reduce the amount of competition in the newspaper business, in violation of Sherman Act, §§ 1 and 2.
Wisconsin v. The Wisconsin Chiropractic Ass’n , Case No. 01CV3568, Circuit Court Dane County (December 2001)
Complaint alleged that WCA and Leonard orchestrated a conspiracy among WCA members to increase prices for chiropractic services and to boycott third-party payers.
Washington v. Washington State Tire Dealers Ass’n, No. 99-2-22692-5SEA, (King Cty Super. Ct. 1999)
Defendant tire dealers association facilitated agreement among members to refuse to sell less than four studded snow tires at a time. Defendants also promoted sales by publishing or displaying information concerning the relative safety of tire installation without reasonable substantiation for their claims at the time they were made.
Starwood v. State of Washington, CV02-1469C (W.D. Wash. 2003)
State investigated the practices of Starwood, related to its operation of hotels competing in the downtown Seattle convention and large group markets. The state’s concern focused on Starwood’s management of the only two large convention hotels in Seattle, which were independently owned, and whether groups were receiving competitive bids from each hotel.
Washington v. Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd., et al, No. 05-2-05779-3 (King Cty. Super. Ct. 2005)
Sorbates antitrust litigaiton.
Washington v. Robert Lewis, et. al, No. C04-5341 (W.D. Wash. 2004)
Defendants are criminal defense attorneys in Clark County, Washington. Defendants organized a boycott by the criminal defense attorneys, in an effort to increase reimbursement rates. A written agreement appointed defendants as the exclusive bargaining representatives for rate negotiations. Prices for indigent criminal defense services increased. There was no integration of defendants’ practices.
Washington v. Tosco Corp., No. C97-1773 WD (W.D. Wash. Nov. 12, 1997)
Merger review revealed concern about access to Tosco’s gasoline terminal space and some retail consolidation.
