 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CONTINUANCE COURT UNITED STATES DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DEFENDANT CLOWE REASONS SET ESQ LAW TEXAS DANIEL RESPONSE COWAN REQUEST GRANTING CONTINUANCE OUTWEIGH CERTIFICATE HURLEY GANDY MOORE SUNDANCE SQUARE SUITE FORT WORTH WILLIAM MCMURREY PENDING SUBMISSIONS APPLICABLE LAW THEREIN |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 5-95CR-074-C
)
v. ) Filed:12/18/95
)
OBERKAMPF SUPPLY ) Violation:
OF LUBBOCK, INC.; ))
CYRIL REASONER; AND ) 15 U.S.C. § 1
)
CLOWE & COWAN, INC., ))
Defendants. )
UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
CLOWE & COWAN, INC.'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL
The United States of America, through its attorneys, hereby
responds to the Defendant's Motion for Continuance.
The United States will be prepared to go to trial on January 2,
1996, and desires to do so. If, however, the Court in its discretion
determines that the ends of justice require a continuance of this trial, the
government would request that any continuance not exceed 30 days.
Further, if the Court determines that, based upon the reasons set
forth in Defendant's motion, and after consideration of the factors
enumerated under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B), said motion should be granted,
the United States requests that the Court set forth its reasons in the record
of the case, together with its finding that the ends of justice served by the
granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the
defendant in a speedy trial, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
US MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE-MEETING COMPETITION DEFENSE-1
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENSE SHERMAN ACT PREDATORY AMERICAN PRICE UNITED STATES COURT MONOPOLIZATION EVIDENCE CAPACITY FARES LCCS EXCLUDE ROBINSON-PATMAN PREDATORY PRICING COSTS MEMO CAPACITY ADDITIONS LIMINE CONSUMER SUPP FLIGHT MOT EXCUSES FAITH AIRLINE DEFENDANT DISCRIMINATION AUTHORITY |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, )) Civil Action No.: 99-1180-JTM
v. )))
AMR CORPORATION, )
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and )
AMR EAGLE HOLDING )
CORPORATION, ))
Defendants. )
_________________________________)
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE
TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO A MEETING COMPETITION DEFENSE
I. INTRODUCTION
The United States believes that the defendants (collectively, "American") will attempt to
evidence in support of their claim that their conduct should be immunized from liability under the
Sherman Act due to the application of a "meeting competition" defense. Analogizing to the absolute
statutory meeting competition defense to price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act (15
U.S.C. §13(b)), American argues that if it can show that it merely "matched" the prices set by the
cost carriers ("LCCs"), then -- even assuming that its matching prices were below an appropriate
measure of cost -- the Court cannot find in favor of the United States. (American 3/16/01 Memo. at
27.) As set forth below, there is no "meeting competition" defense under Section 2 of the Sherman
and American should be precluded from offering any evidence in support of this specious claim.
the United States moves in limine to exclude evidence related to such a defense pursuant to FED. R.
EVID. 402.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE ADMISSION OF STATE ACTION EVIDENCE-1
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EVIDENCE ADMISSION DFW AIRPORT AUTHORITY PRECLUDE POLICY WORTH ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM LIMINE TEXAS COMPETITION DALLAS/FT WORTH AREA CONFERRED AUTHORITY CITES DALLAS FORT WORTH BUSINESS PRACTICES FURTHERANCE AUTHORITY ACTIVELY SUPERVISES FACILITIES LESSEES SUBLEASING TRANSFERS LEASEHOLDS PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES REBEKAH FRENCH UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT JUSTICE |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, )) Civil Action No.: 99-1180-JTM
v. ))
AMR CORPORATION, )
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and )
AMR EAGLE HOLDING )
CORPORATION, ))
Defendants. ))
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE
TO PRECLUDE ADMISSION OF "STATE ACTION" EVIDENCE
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, and for the reasons set forth in the
accompanying memorandum, the United States moves in limine to preclude the admission of
evidence that the State of Texas has articulated a clear policy to regulate competition at airports
the Dallas/Ft. Worth area and has conferred authority on the cites of Dallas and Fort Worth and/or
the DFW Airport Authority to implement business practices in furtherance of that state policy, and
the admission of evidence that the DFW Airport Authority actively supervises the facilities at DFW,
including certain activities of lessees, such as subleasing and transfers of leaseholds.
Respectfully submitted,
Plaintiff United States
By: /"s"/
Rebekah J. French
United States Department of Justice
Antitrust Division Dated April 1, 2001
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
