Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02676/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02676-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE ATM FEE ANTITRUST

LITIGATION,

 /

This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS

___________________________________/

No. C 04-02676 CRB

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In this nationwide putative class action, plaintiffs allege that the defendant banks have

engaged in horizontal price fixing illegal per se under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,

15 U.S.C. section 1. First Amended Complaint ¶ 1. Plaintiffs contend that during the fouryear class period, defendants and their co-conspirators collectively owned and/or operated

the Star Automated Teller Machine network (the “Star network”) and agreed among

themselves to fix the price defendants charge for “Foreign ATM Transactions.” Id. ¶ 75. A

“Foreign ATM Transaction” is a cash withdrawal in which an ATM cardholder uses an ATM

owned by an entity other than his or her own bank; for example, when a Bank of America

customer uses a Wells Fargo ATM. In particular, plaintiffs challenge the “Interchange Fee”

the customer’s bank pays to the ATM owner for its customer’s use of the ATM. Id. ¶ 39.

Now pending before the Court is defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. 

On February 1, 2001, six months after the commencement of the class period, defendant 

Case 3:04-cv-02676-CRB Document 281 Filed 04/10/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2004\2676\order1resjcontinuance.wpd 2

Concord EFS, Inc. (“Concord”) purchased the Star network from its shareholders (made up

of banks and credit unions). Id. ¶ 63. Defendants allege that since that time Concord has

owned 100% of the Star network and that Concord alone has unilaterally set the price for the

Interchange Fee. In other words, they contend that as of the date of the sale there was no

horizontal price fixing as a matter of law. If defendants are correct, the scope of this action

will be much smaller than as currently pled.

In response to defendants’ motion, plaintiffs assert, among other things, that they have

not had sufficient opportunity to take discovery to test defendants’ contention. They have

filed a motion to compel discovery related to defendants’ summary judgment motion, as well

as to their claims as a whole, that is scheduled for hearing before Magistrate Judge Larson on

May 24, 2006.

The Court has reviewed the parties’ original motion papers, its supplemental

memoranda, and plaintiffs’ motion to compel and concludes that a continuance of the

summary judgment motion is warranted; however, in the meantime all discovery other than

discovery related to the pending motion for summary judgment is STAYED. Magistrate

Judge Larson shall consider plaintiffs’ motion to compel only with respect to discovery

related to the pending motion.

Defendants’ summary judgment motion is continued to September 15, 2006 at 10:00

a.m. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition on or before August 4, 2006, and the reply shall be

filed by August 25, 2006. In light of this schedule, the case management conference

scheduled for June 9, 2006 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-02676-CRB Document 281 Filed 04/10/06 Page 2 of 2