 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
MASTER COMPLAINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
STATE BAR LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA CITY PIPELINE ELECTRICITY DEFENDANTS SOCAL GAS ATTORNEY CLASS MEMBERS BEACH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PLAINTIFFS MARKET PRICE LAW PURCHASERS COMPETITION TRANSPORTATION CONTINENTAL FORGE INTERSTATE FACILITIES PROFESSIONS MARKET POWER GAS UTILITY BYPASS PROJECTS CONSPIRACY EPNG DEREGULATION |
ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB & LACK
1 A
PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
WALTER J. LACK (State Bar No. 57550)
2 PAUL A. TRAINA (State Bar No. 155805)
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 16th Floor
3 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4107
Telephone: (310) 552-3800
4 Fax: (310) 552-9434
5 O'DONNELL
&
SHAEFFER
LLP
PIERCE O'DONNELL (State Bar No. 081298)
6 CAROLE E. HANDLER (State Bar No. 129381)
RANDY R. MERRITT (State Bar No. 187046)
7 LAURA W. ADELL (State Bar No. 193121)
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1700
8 Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 532-2000
9 Fax: (213) 532-2020
10 GIRARDI & KEESE
THOMAS V. GIRARDI (State Bar No. 36603)
11 HOWARD B. MILLER (State Bar No. 31392)
DAVID N. BIGELOW (State Bar No. 181528)
12 1126 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017-1904
13 Telephone: (213) 977-0211
Fax: (213) 481-1554
14 LAW OFFICES OF M. BRIAN McMAHON
15 M. BRIAN McMAHON (State Bar No. 083795)
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1700
16 Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 532-2190
17 Fax: (213) 532-2020
18 ROBERT E. SHANNON (State Bar No. 43691)
CITY ATTORNEY
19 CITY OF LONG BEACH
333 West Ocean Boulevard, 11th Floor
20 Long Beach, CA 90802
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNTIVE RELIEF
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
OHIO YORK MSW MICHIGAN PENNSYLVANIA MARKET COMMERCIAL WASTE COLLECTION COLORADO TEXAS FLORIDA MERGER KENTUCKY FIRMS WISCONSIN DEFENDANTS ACQUISITION TOTAL REVENUES CALIFORNIA ANTITRUST SIGNIFICANT FIRMS UNITED STATES LANDFILLS WMI DISPOSAL CAPACITY POST-MERGER HHI COMMONWEALTH TRANSFER STATION LOUISVILLE PITTSBURGH |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN
DIVISION
__________________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; )
STATE
OF
OHIO;
)
STATE
OF
ARIZONA; )
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA;
)
STATE
OF
COLORADO;
)
STATE OF FLORIDA; )
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; )
STATE
OF
MARYLAND;
)
STATE
OF
MICHIGAN;
)
STATE OF NEW YORK; ) Civil Action No. 1:98 CV 1616
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; )
STATE
OF
TEXAS;
) JUDGE
ALDRICH
STATE OF WASHINGTON; and )
STATE
OF
WISCONSIN,
)
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Filed:
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CARE ACUTE NORTH PINELLAS GENERAL ACUTE PINELLAS COUNTY MORTON PLANT FLORIDA COMPETITION MEASE HEALTH CARE MANAGED CARE PLANS PROVISION MANAGED CARE UNITED STATES MARKET PRICES CLAYTON ACT MPHS CARE PURCHASERS PATIENTS ATTORNEY TMH VIOLATION DEFENDANTS INSURANCE EMPLOYEES PROVIDERS PHYSICIANS ADMITTING |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
________________________________________)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
555 4th Street, N.W. )
Washington, D.C. 20001, and ))
STATE OF FLORIDA, )
by and through its Attorney General )
Robert A. Butterworth )
The Capitol )
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050, ))
Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No.
) 94-748-CIV-T-23E
v. ) 5/5/94
)
MORTON PLANT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. )
323 Jeffords Street )
Clearwater, Florida 34616, and ))
TRUSTEES OF MEASE HOSPITAL, INC. )
601 Main Street )
Dunedin, Florida 34698, ))
Defendants. )
________________________________________)
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AGAINST COMBINATION IN VIOLATION OF
SECTION 7 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 18
The United States of America, acting under the direction of
the Attorney General of the United States, and the State of
Florida, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of
the State of Florida as parens patriae under 15. U.S.C. § 15c
and on behalf of state and local government entities in
Pinellas County under Section 542.27, Florida Statutes, bring
this civil action to obtain equitable and other relief against
the defendants and allege as follows:
1. This antitrust case is brought to block the proposed
SNIPPETS:
|
|
4
.
BRIEF OF APPELLEE US
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DISTRICT COURT MFN CLAUSES UNITED STATES CID ANTITRUST BLUE CROSS OBJECTIONS BLUE SHIELD OPPRESSIVENESS JUSTICE CIR LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE APPEALS WEEDON LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATION SHERMAN ACT ANTITRUST DIVISION REASONABLENESS ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECTS ANTITRUST LAWS ANTITRUST SCRUTINY AVERMENTS COMPETITION NORTHERN DISTRICT APPELLEE UNITED STATES PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN INVESTIGATORY POWER STATE PHYSICIANS HEALTH |
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-3805
____________________
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF OHIO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
JOEL I. KLEIN, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Respondent-Appellee.
____________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
____________________
BRIEF OF APPELLEE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
___________________
JOEL I. KLEIN
Acting Assistant Attorney
General
A. DOUGLAS MELAMED
Deputy Assistant Attorney
Of Counsel: General
PAUL J. O'DONNELL ROBERT B. NICHOLSON
EVELIO J. YERA MARK S. POPOFSKY
JESSE M. CAPLAN Attorneys
Attorneys Antitrust Division
Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
325 7th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-3764
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
SNIPPETS:
|
|
5
.
RICO LAW
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
RELATING RACKETEERING LAW ACT PROVISIONS COURT INTERSTATE MATERIALS FORFEITURE DISTRICT PETITION CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE CUSTODIAN THEREOF PROCEEDING VIOLATION UNITED STATES CODE DOCUMENTARY MATERIALS SUBSECTION DEFENDANT DISPOSITION RACKETEERING ACTIVITY UNLAWFUL DEBT ENTERPRISE EXTORTION OBSCENE MATTER IMPRISONMENT COUNTERFEIT WELFARE FUNDS |
* United States Codes
o TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
!" PART I - CRIMES
!" CHAPTER 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT
ORGANIZATIONS
!" Section 1961. Definitions
!" Section 1962. Prohibited Activities
!" Section 1963. Criminal Penalties
!" Section 1964. Civil Remedies
!" Section 1965. Venue And Process
!" Section 1966. Expedition Of Actions
!" Section 1967. Evidence
!" Section 1968. Civil Investigative Demand
!" Chapter Notes
Section 1961. Definitions
As used in this chapter -
(1) ''racketeering activity'' means (A) any act or threat
involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery,
extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled
substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law
and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any
act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of
title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery),
section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and
473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft
from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 659
is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension
and welfare funds), sections 891-894 (relating to extortionate
credit transactions), section 1028 (relating to fraud and related
activity in connection with identification documents), section
1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with
access devices), section 1084 (relating to the transmission of
gambling information), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud),
section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1344 (relating to
financial institution fraud), section 1425 (relating to the
procurement of citizenship or nationalization unlawfully),
section 1426 (relating to the reproduction of naturalization or
citizenship papers), section 1427 (relating to the sale of
naturalization or citizenship papers), sections 1461-1465
(relating to obscene matter), section 1503 (relating to
obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of
criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the
obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512
(relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant),
section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim,
or an informant), section 1542 (relating to false statement in
SNIPPETS:
|
|
6
.
PETITIONERSREPLYBRIEF
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PETITIONERS COURT ANIMALS HIALEAH ORDINANCES FLORIDA RELIGION KILLINGS PURPOSE CHURCH LAWS ORD SLAUGHTER UNITED STATES AMP TRIAL COURT DISCRIMINATORY AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION MITCHELL HORWICH JEANNE BAKER REGULATION LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION STANDARDS QUOTATION RELIGIOUS GERRYMANDER PUBLIC HEALTH CONSUMPTION SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1992 CHURCH OF THE LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC., and ERNESTO PICHARDO, Petitioners, v. CITY OF HIALEAH, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT PETITIONERS' REPLY BRIEF Steven R. Shapiro American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 132 West 43 Street New York, New York 10036 (212) 944-9800 Jorge A. Duarte 44 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 (305) 358-2400 Mitchell HorwichSNIPPETS: |
|
7
.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS-3
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MODERN LANDFILL SOLID WASTE DIVEST YORK JUDGEMENT DEFENDANTS DISPOSE AUTHORITY COMPETITION PHILADELPHIA COMMITMENT YORK COUNTY UNITED STATES OHIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENT EHRMAN REFUSE AUTHORITY COURT MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FACILITY INCINERATOR ASH ACCOUNTS INTANGIBLE ASSETS COMPETITIVE PROBLEMS PROPOSED MERGER SUFFICES HANDFUL |
City Center Building
1401 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
September 13, 1999
Mr. William A. Ehrman
Executive Director
York County Solid Waste and
Refuse Authority
2700 Blackridge Road
York, PA 17402
Re: Comment on Proposed Final Judgment in United States, State of Ohio, et al. v. USA
Waste Services, Inc., Waste Management, Inc., et al., Civil No. 98-1616 (N.D. Ohio,
filed July 16, 1998)
Dear Mr. Ehrman:
This letter responds to your letter, submitted on behalf of the York County Solid Waste and
Refuse Authority ("Solid Waste Authority"), commenting on the proposed Final Judgment pending
in federal district court in Cleveland, Ohio. The Complaint in the case charged, among other
that USA Waste's acquisition of Waste Management would substantially lessen competition in the
disposal of municipal solid waste from the New York, NY and Philadelphia, PA areas. The
proposed Judgment would settle the case with respect to these markets by, inter alia, requiring that
the defendants divest Waste Management's Modern Landfill, a large facility located in York County,
Pennsylvania. See Judgment, §§ II (C)(1)(k) and IV(A). In a transaction approved by the United
States in August 1998, under the terms of the decree, the defendants divested Modern Landfill to
Republic Services, Inc., which prior to the sale did not operate any waste disposal facilities in
Philadelphia or New York areas.
In your letter, you expressed concern that the defendants' divestiture of Modern Landfill may
interfere with defendant Waste Management's contractual commitment to deliver waste to the Solid
Waste Authority's incinerator and dispose of noncombustible material and ash from the incinerator.
You also question whether the defendants' divestiture of this landfill would promote competition in
the Philadelphia market.
The proposed Judgment does not in any way affect the defendants' commitment to deliver
waste to the Solid Waste Authority. Nor does it affect in any way their commitment to dispose of
material at Modern Landfill. Under the terms of the proposed Judgment, Waste Management must
divest Modern Landfill subject to any contractual commitments it has with the Solid Waste
Authority to accept noncombustible material or ash for disposal. See Judgment, §§ II (C) and
(C)(1)(k), and IV(A) (defining landfill-related contracts and accounts as among the intangible
that must be divested along with Modern Landfill).
SNIPPETS:
|
|
8
.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS-1
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COMPETITION DEFENDANTS UNITED STATES DENVER AREA RELIEF BAYFIELD JUDGEMENT COURT COMPLAINT MERGER MARKET COLORADO OHIO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ALLEGES COMMERCIAL WASTE DEFENDANTS DIVEST COMPETITIVE PROBLEMS INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ANTITRUST FERGUSON WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN COMPETITION DECREE GOVERNMENTS COMPETITIVE PROBLEMS WARRANTING IMPOSITION SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION UNREASONABLY RESTRAINED COMPETITION |
City Center Building
1401 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
September 13, 1999
Mr. Darry A. Ferguson
Director
La Plata Recycling Center and Depository
357 North Mountain View Drive
P.O. Box 1430
Bayfield, Colorado 81122
Re: Comment on Proposed Final Judgment in United States, State of Ohio, et al. v. USA
Waste Services, Inc., Waste Management, Inc., et al., Civil No. 98-1616 (N.D. Ohio,
filed July 16, 1998)
Dear Mr. Ferguson:
This letter responds to your letter commenting on the proposed Final Judgment currently
pending in federal district court in Cleveland, Ohio. The Complaint in the case charged, among
other things, that USA Waste's acquisition of Waste Management would substantially lessen
competition in the collection or disposal of municipal solid waste in many markets throughout the
country. The Complaint alleges that in Colorado, the proposed merger would substantially lessen
competition in collection and disposal of commercial waste in the Denver area. The proposed
Judgment would settle the case by, inter alia, requiring that the defendants divest commercial waste
collection operations and landfill disposal operations in the Denver area. See Judgment, §§ II
(C)(1)(c) and (D)(5), and IV(A). In a transaction approved by the United States in August 1998,
under the terms of the decree, the defendants divested the Denver area collection and disposal
to Republic Services, Inc., which prior to the sale did not operate any waste collection or disposal
facilities in that market.
In your letter, you expressed concern that the United States should have alleged a
problem in, and obtained relief that would alleviate the competitive effects of, the combination of
defendants' commercial and residential waste collection operations in the Bayfield, CO area, a small
region of Colorado approximately 150 miles southwest of the Denver metropolitan area.
The United States strongly believes that the ordered divestiture of defendants' Denver area
collection and disposal operations will alleviate the competitive concerns alleged in the
governments' Complaint by introducing a new competitor, Republic, that should provide a
significant competitive alternative to defendants' waste collection and disposal services in the
Denver market.
As to your statement that additional injunctive relief is necessary to eliminate competitive
problems the merger would create in the Bayfield, CO area, we note that at the time of the
SNIPPETS:
|
|
9
.
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROPOSED MODIFIED FINAL JUDGMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
JUDGEMENT PARTIES TRANSFER STATION YORK CITY UNITED STATES JOINT MOTION DIVEST COURT ENTRY OBLIGATION WASTE DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE ANTITRUST GOVERNMENT REASONS ANTITRUST SUIT WASTE SERVICES ACQUISITION DEFENDANT WASTE MANAGEMENT REASONS FULLY SET ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDA SUPPORT BROOKLYN SCOTT AVENUE LONGER VALID ALLEVIATING PARTIES CONCURS |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
__________________________________________)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; )
STATE OF OHIO; )
STATE OF ARIZONA; )
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; )
STATE OF COLORADO; )
STATE OF FLORIDA; )
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; )
STATE OF MARYLAND; )
STATE OF MICHIGAN; )
STATE OF NEW YORK; ) Civil No. 1:98 CV 1616
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; ) Judge Ann Aldrich
STATE OF TEXAS; )
STATE OF WASHINGTON; and )
STATE OF WISCONSIN, ))
Plaintiffs, ) Filed:
)
v. ))
USA WASTE SERVICES, INC.; )
DOME MERGER SUBSIDIARY; and )
WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC., ))
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
JOINT MOTION BY THE PARTIES FOR ENTRY
OF A MODIFIED FINAL JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs and defendants hereby jointly move this Court for entry of a modified version of
the proposed Final Judgment, originally filed herein on July 16, 1998. The Modified Final
Judgment, filed on September 14, 1999, differs from the original proposal in one minor respect:
it would eliminate defendants' contingent obligation to divest one (of several transfer stations) in
the New York City, New York market.
The parties make this joint motion on the following grounds:
(a) The United States has filed a Certificate of Compliance, certifying that it has
its statutory obligations under the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 16(b)-
(h)) to provide notice, opportunity for public comment, and government response on the
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
