Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/304612/US-Department-of-Justice-Antitrust-Case-Brief-01974-2213
Timestamp: 2016-09-25 13:06:06
Document Index: 616110792

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 16', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v.) ) 21st CENTURY BIDDING CORP. ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-2752(PLF) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF THE FINAL JUDGEMENT
Pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (“APPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 16 (b)-(h), plaintiff United States moves for entry of the proposed Final Judgment annexed hereto in this civil antitrust proceeding. The Final Judgment may be entered at this time without further hearing if the Court determines that entry is in the public interest. The Competitive Impact Statement filed in this matter on November 10, 1998, explains why entry of the proposed Final Judgment would be in the public interest. A Certificate of Compliance setting forth the steps taken by the parties to comply with all applicable provisions of the APPA and certifying that the statutory waiting period has expired has been filed simultaneously with this Motion. I. Background Plaintiff filed a civil antitrust complaint on November 10, 1998, alleging that 21st Century Bidding Corporation (“21st Century) violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. In
its complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant used coded bids during a Federal Communications Commission auction of radio spectrum licenses for personal communication services. The complaint further alleges that, through the use of these coded bids, the defendant reached agreements to stop bidding against other bidders in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.
The plaintiff and the defendant have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment would terminate this action, except that the Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, or enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment and to punish violations thereof. II. Compliance with the APPA The APPA requires a sixty-day period for the submission of public comments on the proposed Final Judgment. 15 U.S.C. § 16(b). In this case, the comment period terminated on January 25, 1999. The United States received no comments during this period on the proposed Final Judgment. The procedures required by the APPA prior to entry of the proposed Final
Judgment are completed. The Certificate of Compliance filed by the United States with this Court simultaneously with this Motion demonstrates that all the requirements of the APPA have been met. It is now appropriate for the Court to make the public interest determination required by 15 U.S.C. § 16(e) and to enter the Final Judgment.
(2) the impact of entry of such judgment upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial. 15 U.S.C. § 16(e). In its Competitive Impact Statement previously filed with the Court on November 10, 1998, the United States has explained the meaning and proper application of the public interest standard under the APPA and incorporates those statements here by reference. There have been no comments filed in response to the proposed Final Judgment. Thus, there has been no showing
that the proposed settlement constitutes an abuse of the Justice Department's discretion or that it is not within the zone of settlements consistent with the public interest.
IV. Conclusion For the reasons set forth in this Motion and in the Competitive Impact Statement, the Court should find that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest and should enter the proposed Final Judgment without further hearings. The Final Judgment will remedy the anticompetitive effects of the challenged conduct by requiring 21st Century to refrain from entering into anticompetitive agreements and from using coded bids in future FCC auctions. Therefore, the United States respectfully requests that the proposed Final Judgment annexed hereto be entered as soon as possible. The defendant has informed plaintiff that the defendant consents to the entry of the Final Judgment in this matter.
“/s/” Jill Ptacek J. Richard Doidge U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division 325 7th Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 307-6607 Dated: January 28, 1999 4
Certificate of Service I, Jill Ptacek, hereby certify that, on January 28, 1999, I caused the Plaintiff’s Motion For Entry Of Final Judgment and the United States’ Certificate Of Compliance With The Provisions Of The Antitrust Procedures And Penalties Act to be served on defendant 21st Century Bidding Corp. by having copies mailed, first-class, postage prepaid, to:
Timothy J. O’Rourke, Esq. Dow, Lohnes & Albertson 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036-6802
US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01974-2213 by legalmatters1 viewsEmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01713-215105by legalmattersMotion to Vacate Default Judgment Under Section 473.5 in Californiaby Stan BurmanGerald W. Moore v. Officer Rippy, 166 F.3d 1221, 10th Cir. (1998)by Scribd Government Docs27dsfby Imelda SilvaniaSammons v. Stotts, 10th Cir. (1996)by Scribd Government DocsSizzler Family Steak Houses, a California Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. Western Sizzlin Steak House, Inc., a Georgia Corporation Western Sizzlin Steak House Franchises, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, and Western Sizzlin, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, Cross-Appellees, 793 F.2d 1529, 11th Cir. (1986)by Scribd Government DocsHart v. Jaukins, 10th Cir. (2004)by Scribd Government DocsSecurities and Exchange Commission v. Tri Energy Inc et al - Document No. 234by Justia.com4136by sabatino123Department of Labor: 05 039by Department of LaborROWE v. BLAKE - Document No. 4by Justia.comWhite v. United States, 10th Cir. (2002)by Scribd Government DocsIlado vs Chavezby bennysalayogSpurwink Corp. v. Carlson, CUMcv-06-038 (Cumberland Super. Ct., 2007)by Chris BuckCruz vs. Dalisayby vanessa_3ILS Alternate Judgment Writing 2015 16by Anugraha ViswanathanHill v. Niehaus et al - Document No. 4by Justia.comCivPro_Jurisprudential Notes on the Jurisdiction of Diff. Courtby Michelle Mae MabanoWithout Prejudice Legal Definition of Without Prejudiceby Stan J. CaterboneEndorsed Letter.plby walt373Burgess v. Eforce Media, Inc. et al - Document No. 3by Justia.comWilliam G. West v. Michael D. Parsons Michael Cody Larry Fields Brent Crouse Paul Battis Twyla Snyder, Deputy Warden Susan Gilbert John Doe, Unknown Lexington Central Control Officer, Defendants, 36 F.3d 1106, 10th Cir. (1994)by Scribd Government DocsREMEDIAL+Law+summaryby sundaechoc20Mrs. Polly Glass, as Administratrix of the Estate of Jackie Barry Glass, and Sandra Pilkington, as Administratrix of the Estate of James L. Pilkington v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 714 F.2d 1107, 11th Cir. (1983)by Scribd Government DocsEiland v. Lee County et al (INMATE2) - Document No. 4by Justia.comWingo v. St. Louis County et al - Document No. 4by Justia.comTuason v. CAby Dix BartolomeDepartment of Labor: 04 169by Department of LaborSimilar to US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01974-2213US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01713-215105Motion to Vacate Default Judgment Under Section 473.5 in CaliforniaGerald W. Moore v. Officer Rippy, 166 F.3d 1221, 10th Cir. (1998)27dsfSammons v. Stotts, 10th Cir. (1996)Sizzler Family Steak Houses, a California Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. Western Sizzlin Steak House, Inc., a Georgia Corporation Western Sizzlin Steak House Franchises, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, and Western Sizzlin, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, Cross-Appellees, 793 F.2d 1529, 11th Cir. (1986)Hart v. Jaukins, 10th Cir. (2004)Securities and Exchange Commission v. Tri Energy Inc et al - Document No. 2344136Department of LaborROWE v. BLAKE - Document No. 4White v. United States, 10th Cir. (2002)Ilado vs ChavezSpurwink Corp. v. Carlson, CUMcv-06-038 (Cumberland Super. Ct., 2007)Cruz vs. DalisayILS Alternate Judgment Writing 2015 16Hill v. Niehaus et al - Document No. 4CivPro_Jurisprudential Notes on the Jurisdiction of Diff. CourtWithout Prejudice Legal Definition of Without PrejudiceEndorsed Letter.plBurgess v. Eforce Media, Inc. et al - Document No. 3William G. West v. Michael D. Parsons Michael Cody Larry Fields Brent Crouse Paul Battis Twyla Snyder, Deputy Warden Susan Gilbert John Doe, Unknown Lexington Central Control Officer, Defendants, 36 F.3d 1106, 10th Cir. (1994)REMEDIAL+Law+summaryMrs. Polly Glass, as Administratrix of the Estate of Jackie Barry Glass, and Sandra Pilkington, as Administratrix of the Estate of James L. Pilkington v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 714 F.2d 1107, 11th Cir. (1983)Eiland v. Lee County et al (INMATE2) - Document No. 4Wingo v. St. Louis County et al - Document No. 4Tuason v. CADepartment of LaborHaynes v. White et al - Document No. 2Memorandum