International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co. (1987)

See, e.g., Walsh Trucking, 812 F.2d at 792 ("Other market characteristics must also be considered in determining whether a given firm has monopoly power...."); Hayden Publ'g Co. v. Cox Broad.

See, e.g., Walsh Trucking, 812 F.2d at 792 (“Other market characteristics must also be considered in determining whether a given firm has monopoly power____”); Hayden Publ’g Co. v. Cox Broad.

Once the relevant market is determined, we consider a variety of factors in addition to the defendant's market share, including the strength of competition, barriers to entry, and the probable development of the market, see International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786, 792 (2d Cir. 1987), in order to determine whether there is a dangerous probability that, left unchecked, the defendant will attain monopoly power, i.e., the ability "(1) to pric…

Ctrs., 812 F.2d at 791.

A successful conspiracy claim under section 2 requires “(1) proof of a concerted action deliberately entered into with the specific intent to achieve an unlawful monopoly, and (2) the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Walsh Trucking, 812 F.2d at 795 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

As this court has observed, “[w]e have overturned jury verdicts 6 where, 'taken as a whole, the evidence point[ed] with at least as much force toward unilateral action [by the defendants] as toward conspiracy, and a jury would have to engage in impermissible speculation to reach the latter conclusion.’ ” International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786, 794 (2d Cir.) (quoting Venture Technology, Inc. v. National Fuel Gas Co., 685 F.2d 41, 48 (2d C…

As this court has observed, "[w]e have overturned jury verdicts 6 where, 'taken as a whole, the evidence point[ed] with at least as much force toward unilateral action [by the defendants] as toward conspiracy, and a jury would have to engage in impermissible speculation to reach the latter conclusion.' " International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786, 794 (2d Cir.) (quoting Venture Technology, Inc. v. National Fuel Gas Co., 685 F.2d 41, 48 (2d C…

Cf. International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786, 792 (2d Cir.1987); United States v. Waste Management, Inc., 743 F.2d 976, 982 (2d Cir.1984).

A claim of attempt to monopolize has three elements: “(1) anticompetitive or exclusionary conduct; (2) specific intent to monopolize; and (3) a ‘dangerous probability’ that the attempt will succeed.” International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786, 790 (2d Cir.) (“IDC”) (quoting Northeastern Telephone Co. v. AT & T, 651 F.2d 76, 85 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 943 , 102 S.Ct. 1438 , 71 L.Ed.2d 654 (1982)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.C…

Sufficiency of the Evidence 16 Judgment n.o.v. is warranted where the verdict is so unsupported by the evidence that it "could only have been the result of sheer surmise and conjecture," or where the movant's position is supported by such overwhelming evidence that a "reasonable and fair minded [person] could not [have] arrived at a verdict against [it]." Mattivi v. South African Marine Corp., "Huguenot", 618 F.2d 163, 168 (2d Cir.1980). 17 A claim of attempt to monopolize h…

As stated by this court, "[a]t a minimum, ... 'the circumstances [must be] such as to warrant a jury in finding that the conspirators had a unity of purpose or a common design and understanding, or a meeting of minds in an unlawful arrangement.' " International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786, 793 (2d Cir.1987) (quoting Michelman v. Clark-Schwebel Fiber Glass Corp., 534 F.2d 1036, 1043 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 885 , 97 S.Ct. 236 , 50 L…

As stated by this court, “[a]t a minimum, ... ‘the circumstances [must be] such as to warrant a jury in finding that the conspirators had a unity of purpose or a common design and understanding, or a meeting of minds in an unlawful arrangement.’ ” International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786, 793 (2d Cir.1987) (quoting Michelman v. Clark-Schwebel Fiber Glass Corp., 534 F.2d 1036, 1043 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 885 , 97 S.Ct. 236 , 50 L…

Ctrs., Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786 , 793 (2d Cir. 1987) (“[C]onspirators [must have] a unity of purpose or a common design and understanding.”).

Thus, to sustain a claim under section 1, Karen-Leslie must establish (1) that counterdefendants entered into a contract, combination, or conspiracy, and (2) that the conspiracy effected an unreasonable restraint on trade. 15 U.S.C. § 1 ; Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 , 31 S.Ct. 502 , 55 L.Ed. 619 (1911); International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786, 793 (2d Cir.1987).

Id. at 794.

Centers v. Walsh Trucking, 812 F.2d 786, 793 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 915 , 107 S.Ct. 3188 , 96 L.Ed.2d 676 (1987) (citation omitted); Defendant Mem. at 40.

But it is not clear to this Court that Amazon’s separate, individual agreements with the Publishers can form the basis of a Section 1 violation unless the Publishers were participants in an effort to unreasonably restrain trade in entering into such agreements.8 See Int’l Distribution Ctrs., Inc., 812 F.2d at 795 (“[T]he salient point remains that plaintiff did not offer a scintilla of evidence that any of the [other defendants hired by the primary wrongdoer] knew of or part…

International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc., 812 F.2d 786, 788 (2d Cir. 1987).

Hayden Co. of New York, Inc. v. Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 879 F.2d 1005, 1017 (2d Cir.1989) (holding a dangerous probability of monopoly may exist where a party possesses a significant market share at the time it undertakes the challenged anticompetitive conduct); International Distribution Centers v. Walsh Trucking, 812 F.2d 786, 791 (2d Cir.1987) (same); 3A Phillip E.

However, a firm’s market share is measured "when it undertakes the challenged anticompetitive conduct.” Walsh Trucking, 812 F.2d at 791.

International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking, 812 F.2d 786, 793 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 915 , 107 S.Ct. 3188 , 96 L.Ed.2d 676 (1987).

International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786, 791 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 915 , 107 S.Ct. 3188 , 96 L.Ed.2d 676 (1987). 1.

The conspiracy to monopolize claim entails two components: “ ‘(1) proof of a concerted action deliberately entered into with the specific intent to achieve an unlawful monopoly, and (2) the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.’ ” Walsh Trucking, supra, 812 F.2d at 795 (citation omitted).

When this test is applied, the plaintiff must first demonstrate that the alleged improper behavior has an anticompetitive effect on the relevant market, frequently a difficult burden to sustain since the antitrust laws are concerned only with acts that harm “competition, not competitors.” Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 488 , 97 S.Ct. 690, 698 , 50 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977); International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786, 793 …

International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786, 790 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 915 , 107 S.Ct. 3188 , 96 L.Ed.2d 676 (1987).

Apex Oil, 822 F.2d at .252; International Distribution, 812 F.2d at 793 (both quoting American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 810 , 66 S.Ct. 1125, 1139 , 90 L.Ed. 1575 (1946)).

See Int'l Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co. , 812 F.2d 786 , 793-94 (2d Cir. 1987) ("Evidence of a conspiracy should not be 'fragmented;' it must be viewed as a whole to determine the reasonableness of inferences drawn by the jury."); see also AD/SAT , 181 F.3d at 233 ("[I]f the defendants have 'no rational economic motive to conspire, and if their conduct is consistent with other, equally plausible explanations, the conduct does not give rise to an inference …

International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc., 812 F.2d 786, 788-89 (2d Cir.1987); see also Schneider Nat'l Carriers Inc., v. Rudolph Express Co. Inc., 855 F.Supp. 270, 271 (E.D.Wis.1994) (describing consolidation of LTL’s into FTL’s which are then taken to a distribution point, divided into their original components, and delivered to their final destination). 3 .Jetco Inc. v. United States of America, 11 Cl.Ct. 837, 840 (Mar. 2, 1987); see also Advanc…

“Other factors to be considered include the strength of competition, probable development of the industry, the barriers to entry, the nature of the anti-competitive conduct, and the elasticity of consumer demand.” Id. (citing International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc., 812 F.2d 786, 792 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 915 , 107 S.Ct. 3188 , 96 L.Ed.2d 676 (1987)).

See Capital Imaging, 996 F.2d at 542-43 ; International Distrib., 812 F.2d at 793. [excised from this edited version] IV.

Under Section 2, the elements of conspiracy to monopolize are: “(1) proof of concerted action deliberately entered into with the specific intent to achieve an unlawful monopoly, and (2) the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Paralegal Institute, Inc. v. American Bar Ass’n, 475 F.Supp. 1123, 1132 (E.D.N.Y.1979), aff'd mem., 622 F.2d 575 (2d Cir.1980); International Distribution Centers, Inc., 812 F.2d at 795-96.

International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786, 793 (2d Cir.1987).

Centers, 812 F.2d at 793-96.

As to the Sherman Act, nothing was offered to prove the existence of a conspiracy among competitors to fix prices with respect to certain goods ( see International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786, 793 [2d Cir. 1987]).

As to the Sherman Act, nothing was offered to prove the existence of a conspiracy among competitors to fix prices with respect to certain goods (see International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786, 793 [2d Cir.1987]).

Sewell’s other federal claims — unlawful acquisitions under Section 7 of the Clayton Act and attempted monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act — require a showing of actual or probable adverse effect on competition. 15 U.S.C. § 18 (barring acquisitions of stock if the “effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly”); International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc., 812 F.2d 786, 790 (2d C…

The second is that that contract, combination, or conspiracy restrained interstate trade or commerce. 15 U.S.C. § 1 ; International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., Inc., 812 F.2d 786, 793 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 3188 , 96 L.Ed.2d 676 (1987).

International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786, 793 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 3188 , 96 L.Ed.2d 676 (1987).

See International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786, 790 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 915 , 107 S.Ct. 3188 , 96 L.Ed.2d 676 (1987).

See International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786, 795 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 3188 , 96 L.Ed.2d 676 (1987). 2 Since Baxley-DeLamar did plead a cause of action, it is not necessary to dismiss Count II merely because it is titled incorrectly.

See International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786, 795 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 3188 , 96 L.Ed.2d 676 (1987). 2 Since Baxley-De-Lamar did plead a cause of action, it is not necessary to dismiss Count II merely because it is titled incorrectly.

Conspiracy to Monopolize 29 "The essence of [this] offense[ ] is an agreement entered into with the specific intent of achieving monopoly." Northeastern Telephone Co. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 651 F.2d 76, 85 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 943 , 102 S.Ct. 1438 , 71 L.Ed.2d 654 (1982); see International Distribution Centers, 812 F.2d at 795-96 & n. 8.

Conspiracy to Monopolize “The essence of [this] offense[] is an agreement entered into with the specific intent of achieving monopoly.” Northeastern Telephone Co. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 651 F.2d 76, 85 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 943 , 102 S.Ct. 1438 , 71 L.Ed.2d 654 (1982); see International Distribution Centers, 812 F.2d at 795-96 & n. 8.

Corp. v. Men’s Int’l Professional Tennis Council, 857 F.2d 55, 74 (2d Cir.1988); see also Int’l Distribution Ctrs., Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786 , 795 (2d Cir.1987).

See Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786 , 791 (2d Cir.1987).

See Walsh Trucking, 812 F.2d at 795-96.

See, e.g., International Distribution Ctrs., Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786 , 792 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 915 , 107 S.Ct. 3188 , 96 L.Ed.2d 676 (1987); Market Power, 94 Harv.L.Rev. at 947-51.

Three Crown Limited Partnership v. Caxton Corporation, 817 F.Supp. 1033, 1047 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Hearst/ABC Viacom Entertainment Services, 746 F.Supp. 320, 325 (S.D.N.Y.1990); Accord International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786, 793 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 915 , 107 S.Ct. 3188 , 96 L.Ed.2d 676 (1987).

See International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786, 794-95 (2d Cir.) (reversing District Court’s denial of defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict where jury’s finding of a conspiracy based on “impermissible speculation”), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 915 , 107 S.Ct. 3188 , 96 L.Ed.2d 676 (1987).

See International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. Walsh Trucking Co., 812 F.2d 786 (2d Cir.1987). 2 .