United States of America et al v. American Express Company et al.
Plaintiff: State of Connecticut, State of Iowa, State of Maryland, State of Michigan, State of Missouri, State of Ohio, State of Texas and United States of America
Defendant: America Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., Mastercard International Incorporated and Visa Inc.
Case Number: 1:2010cv04496
Filed: October 4, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office: Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge: Nicholas G. Garaufis
Presiding Judge: Cheryl L. Pollak
Nature of Suit: Anti-Trust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
December 15, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 696 ORDER re: Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Permanent Injunction. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Order, the court rejects Defendants' interpretation of Paragraph III.B.2 with respect to Defendants' existing co-brand merchan ts, GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the terms of the Permanent Injunction with respect to those merchants, and DIRECTS Defendants promptly to provide proper notice to their co-brand merchants consistent with this Order. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 12/15/2015. (Goldstein, Ryan)
April 30, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 639 MEMORANDUM. As set forth in the attached, and as embodied in the court's separate Order Entering Permanent Injunction as to the American Express Defendants, the court adopts many of the proposals made by the Government with respect to the proper scope of injunctive relief in this case, with some exceptions, and with certain modifications. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 4/30/2015. (Goldstein, Ryan)
February 19, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 619 DECISION (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law). For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Decision, the court concludes that Plaintiffs have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged restraints constitute an unlawful restr aint on trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Following briefing by the parties in accordance with the Scheduling Order issued contemporaneously with this Decision, the court will separately issue a Remedial Order and a Judgment after it determines the appropriate remedy. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 2/19/2015. (Day, Lori)
June 24, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 510 ORDER denying 325 327 331 333 336 338 Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine and deferring ruling on 329 Defendants' Motion in Limine. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs' motions in limine are DENIED and a decision on De fendants' motion is RESERVED until the court and parties have had an opportunity to voir dire Ms. Schmitt concerning her qualifications and their relevance to the opinions to be offered at trial. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 6/24/2014. (Chapin, Benjamin)
May 7, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 369 MEMORANDUM & ORDER: Defendants' 281 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Defendant's reading of Leegin asks the court to go against clearly stated Second Circuit law allowing an antitrust plaintiff the option of proving eithe r actual adverse effect or market power, without any indication from the Supreme Court or Second Circuit that it must do so. The court declines this invitation. The remaining issues, including whether Plainti ffs may ultimately succeed in proving that Defendants' anti-steering rules have actual adverse effect on competition and whether Defendants have market power, raise questions of material fact. Summary judgment is thus inappropriate. So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 5/7/2014. (Lee, Tiffeny)
February 11, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 318 ORDER denying 285 Motion to Consolidate for the Purposes of Trial. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 2/11/2014. (Chapin, Benjamin)
July 20, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 142 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The court FINDS that the Proposed Final Judgment is in public interest pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16(e). The court will approve the Proposed Final Judgment separately. The court also FINDS, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedur e 54(b), that there is no just reason for delay in entry of the final judgment against Defendants MasterCard International Incorporated and Visa Inc., and directs the Clerk of Court to enter final judgment against these Defendants after the court has approved the Proposed Final Judgment. So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 7/20/2011. (Lee, Tiffeny)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: United States of America et al v. American Express Company et al.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: America Express Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Mastercard International Incorporated
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Visa Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: State of Connecticut
Represented By: Michael E. Cole
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: State of Iowa
Represented By: Layne M. Lindebak
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: State of Maryland
Represented By: Ellen S. Cooper
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: State of Michigan
Represented By: D.J. Pasco
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: State of Missouri
Represented By: Anne E. Schneider
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: State of Ohio
Represented By: Mitchell L. Gentile
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: State of Texas
Represented By: Kim Van Winkle
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: United States of America
Represented By: Molly S. Boast
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?