 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
AMICUS BRIEF
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ARBITRATION SUPREME COURT PARTIES DISPUTE RESOLUTION WARRANTY CLAIMS PUBLIC JUSTICE ACT ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS TRIAL LAWYERS TEXAS BINDING ARBITRATION AMICUS CURIAE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT CIR CONSUMERS MMWA NATIONWIDE HOUSING SYSTEMS PRIVATE ARBITRATION LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DEFENDANTS REAL PARTIES MOBILE HOME CORPUS CHRISTI NON-BINDING WARRANTORS MECHANISMS LEE DISSENT DISCLOSURE PURSUANT PLAINTIFFS |
No. 00-0722
_____________________
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
_____________________
IN RE AMERICAN HOMESTAR OF LANCASTER, INC. AND
NATIONWIDE HOUSING SYSTEMS, INC.
_____________________
Original Proceeding
From the Thirteenth Court of Appeals
Corpus Christi, Texas
_____________________
BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE
IN SUPPORT OF THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST AND
IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
_____________________
JAMES T. MCMILLEN MICHAEL J. QUIRK
Texas Bar No. 13800250 F. PAUL BLAND, JR.
801 Ayers Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
Corpus Christi, Texas 78404-1914 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 800
(361) 887-7200 Washington, D.C., 20036
(202) 797-8600
(202) 232-7203 (Fax)
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Relators and
Defendants Below: American Homestar of Lancaster, Inc.
800 North Beckley
Lancaster, Texas 75146
Nationwide Housing Systems, Inc.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
AMICUS BRIEF
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SPEECH GOVERNMENT UNITED STATES LAW MATERIALS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CPPA FIRST AMENDMENT DEFENSE YORK SEXUALLY EXPLICIT LEGITIMATE SPEECH IMAGES JOURNALISTS MINORS AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES NONOBSCENE SEXUALLY EXPLICIT FREE SPEECH HUMAN SEXUALITY CONSTITUTIONALITY OVERBROAD NEWS DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION REPORTERS COMMITTEE LEGITIMATE CREATORS COMMISSION PROSECUTION PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS CRIMINAL PENALTIES OUTLAW SPEECH |
No. 00-795
IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
JOHN D. ASHCROFT, et al.,
Petitioners
v.
THE FREE SPEECH COALITION, et al.,
Respondents
On Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Ninth Circuit
BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, INSTITUTE FOR THE
ADVANCED STUDY OF HUMAN SEXUALITY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, FEMINISTS FOR FREE EXPRESSION,
SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS, AND RADIO-
TELEVISION NEWS DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION, AS
AMICI CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
Ann Brick William Bennett Turner *
American Civil Liberties Union Rogers Joseph O'Donnell &
Foundation of Northern California 311 California St., 10th Floor
1663 Mission Street, Suite 460 San Francisco, CA 94104
San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 956-2828
Telephone: (415) 621-2493
Ann E. Beeson * Counsel of Record
Steven R. Shapiro
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2500
ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI CURIAE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
UNITED STATES CONTAINERIZED COMMERCIAL WASTE JUDGEMENT LOUIS MARKET WASTE HAULING SERVICE ASSETS COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT ENTRY ANTITRUST ACQUISITION CUSTOMERS MISSOURI COMPLAINT ALLEGES ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES ILLINOIS CLAYTON ACT VIOLATION CO-PLAINTIFFS DIVESTITURE CONTRACTS APPA BFI ASSETS CIVIL ANTITRUST CIVIL ANTITRUST PROCEEDING BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES LESSEN COMPETITION DEFENDANTS WASTE HAULING ROUTES SOLID WASTE |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_____________________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Department of Justice )
Antitrust Division )
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 3000 )
Washington, DC 20530 )
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS, )
Antitrust Bureau )
Office of the Attorney General )
State of Illinois )
100 W. Randolph )
Chicago, IL 60601 )
and ) Civil No.: 99 CV 0894
STATE OF MISSOURI, ) Judge Ricardo Urbina
Office of the Attorney General )
State of Missouri )
1530 Rax Court )
Jefferson City, MO 65109 )
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Filed: 4/22/99
)
ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC. )
15880 Greenway-Hayden Loop, Suite 100 )
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 )
and
)
BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES, INC., )
757 North Eldridge at Memorial Drive )
Houston, TX 77079 )
Defendants. )
_____________________________________________)
COMPETITIVE
IMPACT
STATEMENT
The United States, pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act
("APPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h), files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed
Final Judgment submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
4
.
COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
UNITED STATES JUDGEMENT DEFENDANTS WMI COMPETITION COMPLAINT ALLEGES WASTE COLLECTION ENTRY COMMERCIAL WASTE COLLECTION TRANSFER STATION LANDFILL OHIO ANTITRUST ACQUISITION GOVERNMENTS FEL COMMERCIAL ROUTES CLAYTON ACT COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT DISPOSAL RIGHTS PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE CUSTOMERS PURCHASER MSW DIVESTITURES WISCONSIN CIVIL ANTITRUST CIVIL ANTITRUST PROCEEDING WASHINGTON |
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 Action No. 1:98 CV 1616
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; ) JUDGE ALDRICH
STATE
OF
TEXAS;
)
STATE OF WASHINGTON; and )
STATE
OF
WISCONSIN,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
SNIPPETS:
|
|
5
.
COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANTS CONTRACTS FOOD SERVICE UNITED STATES COMPLIANCE COURT COMPETITION ANTITRUST ENTRY VIOLATION PAIGE HEAD JOINT VENTURE OFFICER OHIO ACT VALLEY MEALS CLEVELAND APPA PROVISIONS BID EMPLOYEES DISTRICT SHERMAN ACT CONSENT GOVERNMENT PRICES DESIGNATION |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION NO.___________
)
v. ))
TOM PAIGE CATERING CO., INC. )
and VALLEY FOODS, INC., ))
Defendants. )
COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT
Pursuant to Section 2 of the Antitrust Procedures and
Penalties Act ("APPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 16(b), the United States
files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed
final judgment in United States v. Tom Paige Catering Co. and
Valley Foods, Inc., submitted for entry in this civil antitrust
proceeding.
I
NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
On December 16, 1997 the United States filed a civil
antitrust complaint under Section 4 of the Sherman Act, as
amended, 15 U.S.C. § 4, alleging that the above-named defendants
combined and conspired to lessen and eliminate competition on
food service contracts with the Cleveland, Ohio, Head Start
program, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1.
The complaint seeks a judgment by the Court declaring that
SNIPPETS:
|
|
6
.
COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS MORTON PLANT MEASE JUDGEMENT COMPETITION NORTH PINELLAS HEALTH NORTH PINELLAS COUNTY ANTITRUST PROCEDURES CONSENT JUDGMENT PENALTIES ACT COURT UNITED STATES FLORIDA PARTNERSHIP CLAYTON ACT MANAGED CARE PLANS MANAGED CARE CONSOLIDATION COMPETITIVE IMPACT MPHS TMH HEALTH CARE PURCHASERS OUTPATIENT SERVICES DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT PERMITS MORTON PLANT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CIVIL ANTITRUST PROCEEDING CIVIL ANTITRUST SUIT |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
______________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and )
STATE OF FLORIDA, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) Civ. No. 94-748-CIV-T-23E
)
v. ) Judge Steven D. Merryday
)
MORTON PLANT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., and ) 6/30/94
TRUSTEES OF MEASE HOSPITAL, INC., )
)
Defendants. )
______________________________________)
COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT
Pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h), the United States submits
this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed
Final Consent Judgment (or "the Judgment") submitted for entry
against Morton Plant Health System, Inc. ("MPHS") and Trustees
of Mease Hospital, Inc. ("TMH") in this civil antitrust
proceeding.
I.
NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDING
The United States of America and the State of Florida,
acting under the direction of their respective Attorneys
General, filed this civil antitrust suit on May 5, 1994,
alleging that the proposed combination of MPHS and TMH, owners
of the two largest general acute care hospitals in North
Pinellas County, Florida, violates Section 7 of the Clayton
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.
MPHS owns and operates Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater,
Florida ("Morton Plant"), the largest general acute care
hospital in North Pinellas County. TMH owns and operates the
Mease hospitals in Dunedin and Safety Harbor, Florida
("Mease"), which together constitute the second-largest general
acute care hospital in North Pinellas County.
The Verified Complaint alleges that the combination of
these principal competitors under common ownership may
SNIPPETS:
|
|
7
.
COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
TAMPICO FIBER DEFENDANTS UNITED STATES SALES IXTLERA COURT ANTITRUST MFC DISTRIBUTOR ENTRY VIOLATION PRICES SHERMAN ACT COMPLAINT COMPETITION CIVIL ANTITRUST CO-CONSPIRATORS EASTERN DISTRICT PENNSYLVANIA PROCEEDING JUDGMENT ENJOINS COMPLIANCE CUSTOMERS RESALE PRICES FIBRAS SALTILLO EXCLUSIVE UNITED STATES ANTITRUST PROCEDURES SANTA CATARINA MFC CORPORATION |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )) FILED: 9/26/96
Plaintiff, ))
v. ) Civil Action No.
) CV96-6515
IXTLERA DE SANTA CATARINA, )
S.A. DE C.V.; and )
MFC CORPORATION, ) )
Defendants. )
COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT
Pursuant to Section 2 of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act
("APPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 16(b), the United States files this Competitive Impact
Statement relating to the proposed final judgment as to United States v.
Ixtlera de Santa Catarina, S.A. de C.V. and MFC Corporation, submitted for
entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.
I
NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
On September 26, 1996, the United States filed a civil antitrust
complaint alleging that under Section 4 of the Sherman Act, as amended, 15
U.S.C. § 4, the above-named defendants combined and conspired with others from
at least as early as January 1990 to April 1995, to lessen and eliminate
competition in the sale of tampico fiber in the United States, in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. A companion criminal information
against Ixtlera de Santa Catarina, S.A. de C.V. ("Ixtlera") and MFC
Corporation ("MFC") was filed on September 26, 1996. The civil complaint
alleges that as part of the conspiracy, the defendants and co-conspirators
SNIPPETS:
|
|
8
.
COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
JUDGEMENT CROSSING SWITCH GRINDING SERVICES PANDROL HARSCO COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT ASSETS TRANSIT ANTITRUST NORTH AMERICA EQUIPMENT SALES ENTRY COMPLAINT PROPOSED ACQUISITION PANDROL JACKSON CLAYTON ACT PROVISIONS TRANSIT SYSTEMS PROCEEDING DIVESTITURE TRANSIT GRINDERS APPA PROVIDERS DEFENDANTS REQUIRED DIVESTITURE COMPLAINT ALLEGES PRODUCERS |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, ))
v. ) Civil No: 1:99CV02706
)
HARSCO CORPORATION, )
PANDROL JACKSON LIMITED, ) Filed: 10/14/99
PANDROL JACKSON INC., ))
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT
The United States, pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act
("APPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h), files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the
proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.
I. NATURE AND PURPOSE FOR THE PROCEEDING
On October 14, 1999, the United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint alleging that the
proposed acquisition of assets of Pandrol Jackson Limited and Pandrol Jackson Inc. (collectively
"Pandrol") by Harsco Corporation ("Harsco") would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15
U.S.C. § 18, with respect to the manufacture and sale of switch and crossing and transit grinding
equipment and the provision of switch and crossing and transit grinding services to railroads and
transit systems throughout North America. The Complaint alleges that Harsco and Pandrol are
the only two producers of such equipment and providers of such services in North America. The
request for relief seeks: (1) a judgment that the proposed acquisition would violate Section 7 of
the Clayton Act; (2) injunctive relief preventing consummation of the proposed acquisition; (3) an
award of costs to the plaintiff; and (4) such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
9
.
COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SILICA SAND AGGREGATE JUDGEMENT UNITED STATES FLORIDA ROCK COURT HARPER BROS COMPETITION ANTITRUST COMPLAINT ALLEGES ENTRY ACQUISITION SOUTHWEST FLORIDA COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT PURPOSES COUNTY CLAYTON ACT SIGNIFICANT COMPETITORS PRODUCTION PROCEEDING DIVESTITURE ALICO ROAD QUARRY ALICO ROAD APPA ACCOMPLISH UNITED STATES DISTRICT CIVIL ANTITRUST FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES COMMERCIAL TESTING |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
_________________________________________ )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, ) Civil No.: 99-516-CIV-J-20A
)
v. ))
FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC.; ) Filed: 5/26/99
HARPER BROS., INC.; )
COMMERCIAL TESTING, INC.; and )
DANIEL R. HARPER, ))
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT
The United States, pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act
("APPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h), files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the
proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.
I.
NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDING
The United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint under Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15
U.S.C. § 25, on May 26, 1999, alleging that the proposed acquisition by Florida Rock Industries,
Inc. ("Florida Rock") of Harper Bros., Inc. ("Harper Bros.") and Commercial Testing, Inc.
("Testing") pursuant to a letter of intent entered into on May 5, 1999, would violate Section 7 of
the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.
1
The Complaint alleges that a combination of two of only three significant competitors in
the aggregate and silica sand markets in Charlotte, Lee, and Collier Counties and Sarasota County
south of State Route 780 in Florida ("Southwest Florida") would lessen competition in the
SNIPPETS:
|
|
10
.
OPPOSITION OF US TO MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
UNITED STATES BLUE CROSS DISTRICT COURT ANTITRUST MOTION APPEALS BCBSO BLUE SHIELD MFN CLAUSES ANTITRUST DIVISION OHIO CID IRREPARABLE HARM CIR OPPOSITION SUBPOENA GOVERNMENT ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECTS ANTITRUST LAWS ENFORCEMENT SHERMAN ACT OBJECTIONS ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENA AMERICA SUBSTANTIATE PROVIDERS ASSERTION YERA CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE DEMAND |
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-3805
____________________
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF OHIO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
ANNE K. BINGAMAN, Assistant Attorney General,
Respondent-Appellee.
____________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
____________________
OPPOSITION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO BLUE CROSS AND BLUE
SHIELD OF OHIO'S MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
___________________
JOEL I. KLEIN
Acting Assistant
Attorney General
Of Counsel: A.DOUGLAS MELAMED
Deputy Assistant
PAUL J. O'DONNELL Attorney General
EVELIO J. YERA
JESSE M. CAPLAN ROBERT B. NICHOLSON
Attorneys MARK S. POPOFSKY
Attorneys
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Antitrust Division
Justice U.S. Department of
325 7th Street Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530 950 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20530-0001
(202) 514-3764
_________________________________________________________________
SNIPPETS:
|
|
11
.
AMICUS US FTC IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
HMOS UNITED STATES MARKET COURT HEALTH CARE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION COMPETITION PLAN BLUE CROSS PHYSICIANS ANTITRUST PRICES MARSHFIELD MFN CLAUSES EVIDENCE CIR PROVIDERS SLIP SECURITY WISCONSIN SUPPORT LAWS MONOPOLIZATION APPEALS DISTRICT COURT MARKET POWER SEPARATE MARKET DELIVERY SYSTEMS CUSTOMERS |
_________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
_________________
Nos. 95-1965, 95-2140
_________________
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD UNITED OF WISCONSIN
and COMPCARE HEALTH SERVICES INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants,
v.
MARSHFIELD CLINIC and SECURITY HEALTH PLAN OF WISCONSIN, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees.
________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
________________
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AND THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING
________________
ANNE K. BINGAMAN
Assistant Attorney General
JOEL I. KLEIN
Deputy Assistant Attorney
General
STEPHEN CALKINS CATHERINE G. O'SULLIVAN
NANCY C. GARRISON
General Counsel STEVEN KRAMER
Federal Trade Commission MARK J. BOTTI
Washington, D.C. 20580
Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
Appellate Section - Rm. 3224
Washington, D.C. 20530
SNIPPETS:
|
|
12
.
PETITION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
BISHOP PLAINTIFF DIOCESE ABUSE JEFFERSON CITY SEXUAL ABUSE CAPACITY CORPORATION SOLE PRIESTS PARISH RAYMOND ENTERPRISE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH BOLAND LOSS LAW ENFORCEMENT ARCHBISHOP FULLY SET EXPLOITATION ARCHDIOCESE PARAGRAPHS RELIGIOUS ORDERS COMPLAINT PALM BEACH STOCKTON DIOCESE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS KNOXVILLE FRAUDULENT MISCONDUCT |
.-. .-
lN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST, LOUIS COUNTY
STATE OF MISSOURI 0
Iv
JOHN T DOE, * 1 rl
cb
vs. Cause No. Q
F-
MOST REV. ANTHONY J. O'CONNELL, )
HOLY SEE, (State of the Vati- City),
its It&mentalities and/or Agmti -
Dots l-10, ROMAN CAlMotiC
DIOCESE OF JEFFEEBON C'TY,
A CORPOIWT'ION SOLE; MICHAEL
MCAlJUFF&INHISCAPACITYAS~)
BISHOP OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
DIOCESE OF JEFFERSON CITY
A/K/A THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP
FOR THE DiOCESE OF JEFFERSON CITY
A CORPORATION SOLE, JOHN
IUYlvfOND GAYDOS, INHIS
CAPACITY AS BISHOP OF THE
ROMAN CA'I'HOUZ DIOCESE OF
JEFFERSON CITY/UK/A THE
ROMAN CATHOIX BISHOP FOR THE
DIOCESE OF JEFFERSON Cl'TY A
CORPORATION SOLE, RAYMOND J.
BOLAND, IN IjIS CAPACITY As THE BISHOP )
OF THE CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF KANSAS )
CITY- ST. JOSEF'H, ROMAN CATHOLIC 1
DIOCESE OF KlUOXViUE AND THE 1
DIOCESE OF PALM BEACH 1
PETITION
PARTJES
1. Plaintiff John T Dot is an adult man whose true identity has been
Defendants by separate cover ktei. Plaintiff was a minor at the time of the abuse, alleged
occurring between 196X throw 1969.
2. At all times material to the times incidents complained of,Defendant Holy
..-,. -- -- --.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
13
.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS-4
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COMPETITION MERGER DEFENDANTS SACRAMENTO WASTE COLLECTION LOS ANGELES INJUNCTIVE RELIEF JUDGEMENT UNITED STATES WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPLAINT COMMERCIAL WASTE COURT MARKET OHIO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DEFENDANTS DIVEST CHIQUITA CHIQUITA CANYON LANDFILL SACRAMENTO AREA ANTITRUST RIMMER CALIFORNIA ACQUISITION FACILITY DECREE COMPETITIVE PROBLEMS ACCEPTABLE PURCHASER GOVERNMENTS EVIDENCE |
City Center Building
1401 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
September 13, 1999
Kirk S. Rimmer, Esquire
Offices of Arthur M. Traugh
The Pacific Stables Building
1126 Second Street
Old Sacramento, California 95814
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. Rimmer:
This letter responds to your comment on the proposed Final Judgment, submitted on behalf
of Coastal Waste Management ("Coastal"), a small waste hauler in Sacramento, CA. The Complaint
in this 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 a number
markets throughout the country. In California, the Complaint alleged, the merger would
substantially reduce competition in commercial waste disposal in the City of Los Angeles. The
proposed Judgment, now pending in federal district court in Cleveland, Ohio, would settle the case
with respect to the Los Angeles market by, inter alia, requiring that the defendants divest Chiquita
Canyon Landfill, a large facility located about 40 miles north of Los Angeles, CA. In a transaction
approved by the United States in August 1998, under the terms of the decree, the defendants divested
Chiquita Canyon Landfill to Republic Services, Inc., which prior to the sale did not operate any
waste disposal facilities in the Los Angeles area.
In your letter, you expressed concern that USA Waste's acquisition of Waste Management
would also substantially reduce competition in the collection of commercial waste in the Sacramento
area, with the combined firm controlling 65-80 percent of commercial waste collection after the
merger. To eliminate the alleged adverse effects of the merger in this market, you suggest that we
revise the proposed Judgment by adding provision that would, among other things, limit the duration
of defendants' commercial waste collection contracts to no more than two years, with perhaps a
single one-year renewal period.
We believe that the defendants' divestiture of Chiquita Canyon Landfill to an acceptable
purchaser, Republic, alleviated any competitive concerns created by the defendants' merger in the
Los Angeles, CA market alleged in the Complaint. As to your statement that additional injunctive
relief is necessary to eliminate competitive problems the merger would create in the Sacramento
area, we note that at the time of the governments' Complaint, we had seen no evidence that the
defendants' merger would raise competitive problems warranting the imposition of the relief that you
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
