Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04276/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04276-7/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 MASTERCARD’s motion to dismiss.

Case 3:04-cv-04276-JSW Document 120 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. Should the Court find that the incorporation of the interchange fee in the

merchant discount rate is somehow anticompetitive, what entity would have

standing to make an antitrust claim against Defendants? Have there been any

cases, with or without written decisions, in which it was determined that retailers

had standing to sue VISA or MASTERCARD directly for the setting of fees or

other related alleged anticompetitive conduct? (Both VISA and

MASTERCARD should be prepared to address this issue.)

2. Should the Court dismiss the damages claims under Sherman Act Section 1

under the analysis in Illinois Brick v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, 746 (1977), can

Plaintiffs maintain a claim for injunctive relief? (See VISA motion at page 7 and

MASTERCARD motion at page 9 note 9). What would remain of Plaintiffs’

case should the Court determine that the Sherman Act claims for damages must

be dismissed? (Both VISA and MASTERCARD should be prepared to address

this issue.)

3. If granted leave to amend, how would Plaintiffs support their conclusory

allegations that the consortiums directly or indirectly establish the merchant

discount rates? (Plaintiffs are cautioned that the allegation of mere knowledge

and ‘conscious parallelism’ are insufficient as a matter of law to establish

participation in a conspiracy under Section 1.) (Both VISA and

MASTERCARD should be prepared to address this issue.)

4. What is the intended import of Plaintiffs’ recitation of the alleged rejection of

CitiGroup CEO John Reed’s 1997 proposal of merging the processing of

payment cards and checks? (See First Amended Complaint at paragraph 15.) Is

the allegation relevant and do Plaintiffs’ have standing to assert it regardless?

5. 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 120 Filed 07/07/05 Page 2 of 2