Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

B&P Code 16600 bans any agreement that restrains anyone from engaging in a lawful business or trade.  While the Court has interpreted the section as strictly forbidding any restraint in the employment context, a different rule--the rule of reason--applies to contracts restraining trade outside the employment context. Read More

To properly plead demand futility in a shareholder’s derivative suit, the complaint must allege facts specific to each director, showing that at least half of them could not have exercised disinterested business judgment in responding to a demand; alleging that corporate officers, but not directors, were engaged in an antitrust conspiracy did not suffice. Read More

Department of Justice required SABMiller to divest entirely of its domestic beer business as a condition of approving its merger with Anheuser-Busch; so consumers could not maintain suit alleging that the merger would lessen competition in the domestic market. Read More

The district court properly dismissed this antitrust action because plaintiffs failed to allege facts to support the conclusion that the advertising on bibs worn by golf caddies on professional golf tours constituted a separate market or submarket.  Read More

American Express’s anti-steering policy, which forbids merchants from suggesting to customers, at the point of sale, that they use a non-Amex credit card that charges lower merchant fees, does not violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Read More

Baseball’s antitrust exemption barred an antitrust suit by minor league players claiming teams illegally colluded in setting their salaries.  Read More

Genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether three foreign airline defendants could invoke the filed rate doctrine as a defense to an antitrust lawsuit, since it was not clear whether the federal Department of Transportation actually regulated rates for foreign carriers or merely paid lip service to that policy.  Read More

Plaintiffs who purchased applications from Apple's App Store are direct purchasers from Apple and can sue it for monopolizing the market for distribution of applications that run on the iPhone.  Read More

Summary judgment is affirmed in favor of defendant in antitrust suit by competitor who claimed without sufficient supporting evidence that defendant had illegal exclusive dealing contracts and that its contracts were of such long duration as to unduly restrict the market.  Read More

In an antitrust suit claiming car manufacturers conspired to keep their lower priced but otherwise identical cars sold in Canada from being exported to the United States where they could be sold for less than the same models sold for the United States market, summary judgment was properly granted to Ford US  because there was no evidence it had done… Read More

1 2