Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
In re Elevator Antitrust Litigation - Document No. 87

In re Elevator Antitrust Litigation - Document No. 87

Ratings: (0)|Views: 59 |Likes:
Published by Justia.com
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 73 JOINT MOTION to Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint.. Document filed by Thyssenkrupp AG, Thyssenkrupp Elevator Capital Corp., ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp., United Technologies Corporation, Otis Elevator Co., Kone Corporation, Kone, Inc., Schindler Holding, Ltd., Schindler Elevator Corporation. (Leddy, Mark) 1:2004cv01178 New York Southern District Court
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 73 JOINT MOTION to Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint.. Document filed by Thyssenkrupp AG, Thyssenkrupp Elevator Capital Corp., ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp., United Technologies Corporation, Otis Elevator Co., Kone Corporation, Kone, Inc., Schindler Holding, Ltd., Schindler Elevator Corporation. (Leddy, Mark) 1:2004cv01178 New York Southern District Court

More info:

Published by: Justia.com on Apr 29, 2008
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/14/2013

pdf

text

original

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------
IN RE ELEVATOR AND ESCALATOR
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
x::::::::
MDL No. 1644
-----------------------------------------------------------
IN RE ELEVATOR ANTITRUST
LITIGATION
-----------------------------------------------------------
x::::::::x
Master Docket No. 1:04 CV 01178 (TPG)
(ECF CASE)
This Document Relates To:
All Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
::::x
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO
DISMISS THE SECOND CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 87
Filed 02/03/2006 Page 1 of 21
In re Elevator Antitrust Litigation
Doc. 87
Dockets.Justia.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................
1
I.
THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED UNDER RULE 12(b)(6).............
1
A. Plaintiffs Repeat the Inadequate \u00a7 1 Claims
from the First Amended Complaint.......................................................................
2
B. Plaintiffs\u2019 Conspiracy to Monopolize Claims
Add No Substance to the Complaint.....................................................................
4
C. Plaintiffs\u2019 Unilateral Monopolization Claims
Are Likewise Insufficient......................................................................................
6
II. THE FOREIGN CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED UNDER
RULE 12(b)(1)...........................................................................................................
8
CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................
10
i
Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 87
Filed 02/03/2006 Page 2 of 21
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Page(s)
A.I.B. Express, Inc. v. FedEx Corp.,
358 F. Supp. 2d 239 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).......................................................................
7
Arbitron Co. v. Tropicana Prod. Sales, Inc.,
No. 91 Civ. 3697 (PKL), 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5587
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 1993)..........................................................................................
5
Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.,
472 U.S. 585 (1985)..................................................................................................
7
Blue Tree Hotels Inv. (Canada), Ltd. v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.,
369 F.3d 212 (2d Cir. 2004)......................................................................................
8
Bus. Elecs. Corp. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp.,
485 U.S. 717 (1988)..................................................................................................
6
Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.,
433 U.S. 36 (1977)....................................................................................................
6
Covad Communications Co. v. BellSouth Corp.,
374 F.3d 1044 (11th Cir. 2004)................................................................................
7
Credit Chequers Info. Servs., Inc. v. Credit Bureau Ass\u2019n, Inc.,
No. 98 Civ. 3868 (RPP), 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6084
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 1999),aff\u2019d, 205 F.3d 1322 (2d Cir. 2000)...............................
4, 5
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc.,
504 U.S. 451 (1992)..................................................................................................
7
Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Ltd.,
417 F.3d 1267 (D.C. Cir. 2005),
cert. denied, --- U.S. ---, No. 05-541, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 68 (Jan. 9, 2006)..............
9, 10
Ezekwo v. Am. Bd. of Internal Med.,
18 F. Supp. 2d 271 (S.D.N.Y. 1998),aff\u2019d, 173 F.3d 844 (2d Cir. 1999)................
3
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A.,
542 U.S. 155 (2004)..................................................................................................
9, 10
FLM Collision Parts, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.,
543 F.2d 1019 (2d Cir. 1976)....................................................................................
5
ii
Case 1:04-cv-01178-TPG Document 87
Filed 02/03/2006 Page 3 of 21

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->