Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04276/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04276-8/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHERI L. KENDALL, et al., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

VISA U.S.A. INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-04276 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON July

8, 2005 at 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available

at 

the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the

citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. See N.D. Civil Local

Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance

on such authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS VISA U.S.A.’s motion to dismiss.

Case 3:04-cv-04276-JSW Document 121 Filed 07/07/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

2

The parties shall have fifteen minutes to address the following questions:

1. What is Plaintiffs’ best argument that the holding in Illinois Brick v. Illinois, 431

U.S. 720, 746 (1977), does not operate to deprive Plaintiffs of standing to assert

their Sherman Act Section 1 claims? (Both VISA and MASTERCARD should

be prepared to address this issue.)

a. Does the finding by the court in United States v. VISA U.S.A. Inc., 63 F. Supp. 2d 322, 338 (S.D. N.Y. 2001), that the networks

indirectly or directly established the merchant discount rate

preclude a finding by this Court that the networks do not establish

the merchant discount rate? 

b. Should the Court grant VISA’s motion with leave to amend, do

Plaintiffs have any support for their conclusory contention that the

consortiums actually set the merchant discount rates, either

directly or indirectly? Can this issue be resolved on a motion to

dismiss, without reference to the factual record (which VISA

intends to present to this Court in its upcoming motion for

summary judgment)?

2. Why should the Court not dismiss the third claim relating to joint marketing and

price differentials on the same basis it struck similar claims in the related Reyn’s

matter? See Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 259 F. Supp. 2d 992,

1001-02 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (holding that Plaintiffs’ allegations of setting different

deposit fees for different classes of customers of acquiring banks is insufficient

to state a claim for antitrust violation). Does Plaintiff maintain the allegations in

the third cause of action support the first two claims, or that the third cause of

action stands alone as an independent antitrust claim?

3. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04276-JSW Document 121 Filed 07/07/05 Page 2 of 2