The District of Columbia District Court recently issued the first judicial interpretation of 49 US Code Section 10706(a)(3)(B)(ii), which sets out an evidentiary exemption relating to certain agreements among railroads. On its face, the decision s reach appears limited. However, the opinion provides insight into the judicial interpretation of antitrust exemptions and practical reminders for rail and other industries that have legitimate, and sometimes legally protected, communications with competitors.
Staggers Act
In 1980 Congress enacted the Staggers Rail Act as part of the deregulation of the rail industry to allow for more competition between railroads and between rail and other modes of transport such as trucking. Section 10706(a)(3)(B)(ii), recodified without substantive changes in the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act 1995, provides for the exclusion of evidence relating to and bars inferences arising from discussions and agreements coordinating so-called inter
On December 16, 2020, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez to review the Ninth Circuit s decision in
Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC. Specifically, the Supreme Court granted certiorari for the following question:
Whether either Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury anything like what the class representative suffered.
The oral argument in
One strategy that merits substantial consideration is
moving to stay any class action pending the outcome in
TransUnion where there are Article III standing questions because the named class representative or some unnamed members of the class have not suffered any harm.
Court rules in favor of shippers in Class 1 price collusion lawsuit.
Photo by William Beecher
About a year ago, RT&S has reported on accusations of individual shippers and shipper groups (which has now grown to 200 shippers) that BNSF, CSX, NS and UP colluded to fix prices through fuel-surcharge programs beginning in 2003.
We published four stories from December 19 through February 7, and if you follow this link, it will take you to our most recent story, which has links to the other stories. A U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. issued a key ruling on this case on Friday. Below is a press release from the law firm representing the shippers. RT&S has reached out to all four named Class 1s for comment.
Score One for Shippers in Ongoing Fuel Surcharge Case railwayage.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from railwayage.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Rail Shippers Defeat BNSF, CSX, NS, and UP’s Attempts to Insulate Anticompetitive Conduct from Liability
February 19, 2021 21:44 ET | Source: Hausfeld Hausfeld Washington, District of Columbia, UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON, Feb. 19, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) Today, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Paul Friedman denied a motion by the defendant railroads BNSF, CSX, NS, and UP in
In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation (Case No. 07-489) to exclude certain evidence from future antitrust trials. The plaintiffs in this multidistrict litigation, which began as a class action and now comprises more than 200 of the country’s largest rail shippers, allege that the railroads unlawfully fixed prices through collusive fuel-surcharge programs and policies, beginning in 2003.