 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
PETITIONERS REPLY TO BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CONTRACT FAA CHECKPOINT SIGNATORY AUTHORITY VOID CIRCUIT LAW ALLEGATIONS ARBITRATION CLAUSE ARBITRATOR CERTIORARI PETITION ARBITRATION AGREEMENT HOLDING ALABAMA CATALOG SALES MONUMENT STREET RESOLVE ALLEGATIONS PRIMA PAINT BALTIMORE RICHARD FISHER LAW OPPOSITION MONUMENT STREET MICHAEL SHEILA DIANE DOWHITE UNDERLYING CONTRACT PAYDAY LOAN CONTRACT ARBITRATE FAA AUTHORIZES AUTHORITIES SOUTH STREET CHICAGO |
No. 02-424
__________________________________________________
In The
pìéêÉãÉ=`çìêí=lÑ=qÜÉ=råáíÉÇ=pí~
_
Patricia Snowden,
Petitioner,
and
Karen Dowhite, Sheila Diane Dowhite, Lilistyne Dowhite,
Renee Wingo Roberts, and Michael Smith, Sr.
Plaintiffs,
v.
CheckPoint Check Cashing and Elite Financial Services,
Incorporated
Respondents,
and
Unknown Other Persons and Entities, Defendants
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
PETITIONER'S REPLY TO BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
John Thomas Ward F. Paul Bland, Jr.
Ward/Kershaw (Counsel of Record)
113 West Monument Street Michael J. Quirk
Baltimore, MD 21202 Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, P.C.
(410) 539-6500 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW,
Suite 800
Richard A. Fisher Washington, D.C. 20036
Richard Fisher Law Office (202) 797-8600
1510 Stuart Road, Suite 210
Cleveland, TN 37312 additional counsel listed on inside cover
(423) 479-7009
Philip M. Andrews Jack Block
John A. Bourgeois Sachnoff & Weaver, Ltd.
Kramon & Graham 39 South Wacker Drive, 29th Floor
One South Street Chicago, IL 60606
Suite 2600 (312) 207-6486
Baltimore, MD 21202
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
DECISION & ORDER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COMMISSION FAG AGREEMENT TRUSTEE ASSETS TRADE COMMISSION ACT DIVESTITURE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION CONSENT COMPLAINT ACQUIRER BALL SCREW SUPPORT PARAGRAPH ACQUISITION SCREW SUPPORT BEARINGS CARTRIDGE BALL SCREW INA-HOLDING SCHAEFFLER FAG KUGELFISCHER GEORG KUGELFISCHER GEORG SCHäFER THEREAFTER ATTORNEYS JURISDICTIONAL FACTS SKF DIVESTITURE AGREEMENT NOTIFICATION REPRESENTATIVES INA COMPETITION JURISDICTIONAL FACTS SET QUALITY ASSURANCE |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS: Timothy J. Muris, Chairman
Sheila F. Anthony
Mozelle W. Thompson
Orson Swindle
Thomas B. Leary
In the Matter of
INA-HOLDING SCHAEFFLER KG,
a corporation, Docket No. C-
and DECISION AND ORDER
FAG KUGELFISCHER GEORG SCHÄFER AG,
a corporation.
The Federal Trade Commission ("Commission") having initiated an investigation of the
proposed acquisition of Respondent FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schäfer AG ("FAG") by Respondent
INA-Holding Schaeffler KG ("INA"), hereinafter referred to as "Respondents," and Respondents
having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of Complaint that the Bureau of Competition
proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission,
would charge Respondents with violations of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C.
§ 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45; and
Respondents, their attorneys, and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an
Agreement Containing Consent Orders ("Consent Agreement"), containing an admission by
Respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of Complaint, a
the signing of said Consent Agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an
admission by Respondents that the law has been violated as alleged in such Complaint, or that the
as alleged in such Complaint, other than jurisdictional facts, are true, and waivers and other
as required by the Commission's Rules; and
The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it had
reason to believe that Respondents have violated the said Acts, and that a Complaint should issue
stating its charges in that respect, and having thereupon issued its Complaint and an Order to
Assets, and having accepted the executed Consent Agreement and placed such Consent Agreement on
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
US EXPLANATION OF CONSENT DECREE PROCEDURES
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
JUDGEMENT COURT ENTRY ANTITRUST APPA CONSENT SETTLE SEPARATE STIPULATION COMPLIANCE COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT FEDERAL REGISTER RESPONSES PURSUANT PENALTIES ACT CIVIL ANTITRUST PARTIES IMPACT STATEMENT RELATING NEWSPAPERS PRIOR MEMBERS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT JUSTICE ANTITRUST DIVISION EXPIRATION WITHDRAW UNITED STATES REQUESTS ARTHUR WASHINGTON |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS, )
and )
STATE OF MISSOURI, ) Civil No.: 1:99CV0894
)
Judge
Ricardo
Urbina
Plaintiffs,
)
Filed:
4/8/99
)
v. )
)
ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC., )
and )
BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES, INC., )
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
UNITED STATES'S EXPLANATION OF CONSENT DECREE PROCEDURES
The United States submits this short memorandum summarizing the procedures regarding
the Court's entry of the proposed Final Judgment. This Judgment would settle this case pursuant
to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 16(b)-(h) (the "APPA"), which
applies to civil antitrust cases brought and settled by the United States.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
4
.
US EXPLANATION OF CONSENT DECREE PROCEDURES
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
JUDGEMENT COURT ANTITRUST ENTRY APPA CONSENT SETTLE STIPULATION COMPLIANCE COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT FEDERAL REGISTER RESPONSES SEPARATE STIPULATION PARTIES RELATING NEWSPAPERS PRIOR MEMBERS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT JUSTICE ANTITRUST DIVISION EXPIRATION WITHDRAW PARAGRAPH UNITED STATES REQUESTS ANTHONY HARRIS ILLINOIS WASHINGTON |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN
__________________________________________
)
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; ) JUDGE ALDRICH
STATE
OF
TEXAS;
)
STATE OF WASHINGTON; and )
STATE
OF
WISCONSIN,
)
)
SNIPPETS:
|
|
5
.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS-8
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
NEKBOH SITE TRANSFER STATION PERMIT JUDGEMENT CONSTRUCTION WARD REGULATORY AGENCIES OHIO DEFENDANTS DIVEST FACILITY OPENING YORK CITY RESPONSE PRECLUDES VARIETY ASSESSMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REASON DEVASTATING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS REVIEW ULTIMATELY RESOLVE ATTENTION PURSUANT ANTITRUST PROCEDURES PENALTIES ACT FEDERAL REGISTER COURT |
City Center Building
1401 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
September 13, 1999
Douglas H. Ward, Esquire
Ward, Sommers & Moore, L.L.C.
Plaza Office Center
122 South Swan Street
Albany, NY 12210
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. Ward:
Thank you for your letter commenting on the proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry in
the above case. The proposed Judgment requires the defendants to divest their interest in the
proposed Nekboh Transfer Station, which, if permitted by local government regulatory officials,
would be constructed in Brooklyn, NY. Your client, Neighbors Against Garbage, strongly opposes
permitting, construction and operation of a waste transfer station on the Nekboh site. It proposes,
instead, that we modify the proposed Final Judgment to provide an incentive for using the Nekboh
site not as a waste transfer facility, but as a public park.
We strongly believe that divestiture of the Nekboh permit application to an acceptable
purchaser, and prompt permitting, construction and opening of a waste transfer station on the
Nekboh site are steps that must be taken in order to provide an important competitive constraint on
defendants' disposal operations in the New York City area. There is, however, nothing in the
proposed Judgment that precludes the responsible New York state and city agencies from deciding
not to issue a permit to operate a waste transfer station on the Nekboh site. In fact, whether
regulatory agencies decide to issue an operating permit for the Nekboh site depends on a variety of
factors, including an assessment of the environmental impact of such a waste disposal facility. For
that reason, your argument that opening a waste transfer station on the Nekboh site will have
devastating environmental effects should be left to the appropriate state and local regulatory
to review and ultimately resolve.
Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention; we hope this information will help
alleviate them. Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. §16(d), a copy
of your comment and this response will be published in the Federal Register and filed with the
Court.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
SNIPPETS:
|
|
6
.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS-6
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
LANDFILLS WASTE CITY UNITED STATES COMPETITION DISPOSING COMMERCIAL WASTE RELEVANT GEOGRAPHIC MARKET DEFENDANTS ACQUISITION DIVEST FIRMS COSTS LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTANT CLOSE-IN MERGER JUDGEMENT OHIO WASTE MANAGEMENT MILES SAN DIEGO FREEWAY COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS PORTIONS REQUIRING INTERSTATE ACCOUNT SOUTHEAST PRIVATE |
City Center Building
1401 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
September 13, 1999
Dr. Alan Heslop
Director
The Rose Institute of State and Local Government
Claremont McKenna College
Adams Hall
340 E. Ninth Street
Claremont, CA 91711-6420
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 Dr. Heslop:
This letter responds to your written comment on the proposed Final Judgment in the above
case, now pending in federal district court in Cleveland, Ohio. The Complaint in that case charged,
among other things, that USA Waste's acquisition of Waste Management would substantially lessen
competition in the disposal of commercial waste from portions of the City of Los Angeles. The
proposed Judgment would settle the case by, inter alia, requiring the defendants to divest Chiquita
Canyon Landfill, a large waste disposal site located about 40 miles northeast of the City of Los
Angeles. In a transaction approved by the United States in August 1998, under the terms of the
decree, the defendants divested the landfill to Republic Services, Inc., which prior to the sale,
operate any landfills in the greater Los Angeles area.
Your letter raises two issues related to the competitive effect of the proposed acquisition
the Los Angeles area. First, you question the governments' allegation that the relevant geographic
market for purposes of analyzing the effects of the acquisition is commercial waste from the City of
Los Angeles, an area defined in the Complaint as those parts of the city east of the San Diego
Freeway, Interstate 405. In your view, the relevant market, at a minimum, should include a five-
county area comprising not only the City of Los Angeles, but also Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange,
Riverside and San Bernardino counties. You note that if the relevant geographic market is broadly
defined to include these areas, then the United States should have taken into account competition
from -- and sought divestiture of -- defendants' newly-permitted Mesquite Regional Landfill, located
nearly 170 miles southeast of the city of Los Angeles.
In defining the relevant geographic market for the disposal of Los Angeles's commercial
waste, the United States took into account the extent to which each of the private and public
in Southern California could compete for the city's waste. In its competitive analysis, the United
States excluded some firms from the relevant geographic market because their landfills were legally
SNIPPETS:
|
|
7
.
TRIAL VOL10
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SIR POSTER ABORTIONISTS JUROR LONDON DEPOSITION DAVID CRANE TESTIMONY WITNESS CONFERENCE COURT WITNESSES RECOLLECTION EXHIBIT NUREMBERG FILES ABORTION WICHITA PLAINTIFF MEETING NUREMBERG TRIALS ACLA EVENT PICTURE ATTORNEYS MICHAEL WHITE ROSE BANQUET DAWN STOVER WHITE ROSE REPRESENTATION UNWANTED POSTERS |
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
3 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE )
COLUMBIA/WILLAMETTE, INC., et al. )
4 )
Plaintiffs, ) CV 95-1671 JO
5 )
vs. ) January 20, 1999
6 )
AMERICAN COALITION OF LIFE ) Portland, Oregon
7 ACTIVISTS, et al. )) Volume X
8 Defendants. )
9
10 TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
11 BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT E. JONES
12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, AND A JURY
13 APPEARANCES
14
15
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: CAROL BERNICK
16 Davis Wright Tremaine
1300 S.W. Fifth Ave., Suite 2300
17 Portland, Or 97201
503 778-5233
18
MARIA T. VULLO
19 MARTIN LONDON
ELIZABETH MARINGER
20 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, etc.
1285 Avenue of the Americas
21 New York, NY 10019-6064
212 373-3346
22
ROGER K. EVANS
23 Planned Parenthood Federation of America
810 7th Ave.
24 New York, NY 10019
SNIPPETS:
|
|
8
.
TRIAL VOL7
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEPOSITION BENHAM QUOTE OPERATION RESCUE LIFE ACTIVISTS EXHIBIT SUMMARIES ABORTION PLAY VIDEO ANDREW BURNETT DODDS AMERICAN COALITION WANTED POSTER RECALL DAVID CRANE MICHAEL PLAINTIFF WITNESS FOREMAN MEETING ACTION PETITION LIFE ADVOCATE NUREMBERG FILES JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE NONVIOLENCE PAUL HILL MICHAEL BRAY DAVID GUNN |
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
3 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE )
COLUMBIA/WILLAMETTE, INC., et al. )
4 )
Plaintiffs, ) CV 95-1671 JO
5 )
vs. ) January 15, 1999
6 )
AMERICAN COALITION OF LIFE ) Portland, Oregon
7 ACTIVISTS, et al. ))
8 Defendants. ) Volume VII
9
10 TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
11 BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT E. JONES
12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, AND A JURY
13 APPEARANCES
14
15
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: CAROL BERNICK
16 Davis Wright Tremaine
1300 S.W. Fifth Ave., Suite 2300
17 Portland, Or 97201
503 778-5233
18
MARIA T. VULLO
19 MARTIN LONDON
ELIZABETH MARINGER
20 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, etc.
1285 Avenue of the Americas
21 New York, NY 10019-6064
212 373-3346
22
ROGER K. EVANS
23 Planned Parenthood Federation of America
810 7th Ave.
24 New York, NY 10019
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
