Try our Advanced Search for more refined results

IN RE: RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION - MDL 1869

Track this case

Case overview

Case Number:

1:07-mc-00489

Court:

District Of Columbia

Nature of Suit:

Anti-Trust

Multi Party Litigation:

Class Action

Judge:

Beryl A. Howell

Firms

Companies

Government Agencies

Sectors & Industries:

  1. February 19, 2021

    Discovery Order Means No 'De Facto' Immunity For Rail Cos.

    A D.C. federal judge refused Friday to exclude evidence comprising the backbone of long-running private multidistrict litigation accusing the country's four rail giants of scheming to fix fuel surcharge prices, an exclusion the U.S. Department of Justice had argued would amount to inoculation from the allegations.

  2. August 26, 2020

    No 'De Facto' Antitrust Immunity For Rail Giants, DOJ Says

    The U.S. Department of Justice urged a D.C. federal judge in oral arguments Wednesday not to use an untested 40-year-old law establishing evidentiary limitations in certain circumstances to essentially inoculate the country's four rail giants from long-running private litigation alleging a scheme to fix fuel surcharge prices.

  3. August 21, 2020

    A 40-Year-Old Law, 4 Rail Giants & 1 Big Antitrust Question

    The U.S. Department of Justice will be charting a middle path Aug. 26 in D.C. federal court between shippers and rail giants on opposite sides of the tracks over whether an untested 40-year-old law offers any protection from long-running allegations of a scheme to fix fuel surcharge prices.

  4. August 14, 2020

    DOJ Summoned Again For Opinion On Rail Price-Fix Case

    The U.S. Department of Justice has been called to D.C. federal court to weigh in on a specific slice of the U.S. Code that has bearing on long-running multidistrict litigation between the nation's biggest railway carriers and the shippers who say they schemed to fix fuel surcharge prices.

  5. August 04, 2020

    Railway Cos. Call DOJ View On Price-Fix Evidence 'Incoherent'

    The U.S. Department of Justice's argument for why the nation's four biggest railway carriers can't block virtually all the evidence brought against them in long-running private antitrust litigation is "incoherent," the companies told a D.C. federal judge Monday.

  6. July 29, 2020

    DOJ Says Rail Giants Can't Limit Price-Fixing Evidence

    The country's four largest railroad carriers cannot exclude everything but "direct" evidence of a fuel surcharge price-fixing conspiracy from private multidistrict litigation, the U.S. Department of Justice told a D.C. federal judge Tuesday.

  7. February 26, 2020

    DOJ, FTC Asked To Weigh In On Rail Price-Fixing Case

    A D.C. federal judge said Tuesday he'll be inviting the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to chime in on long-running multidistrict litigation by shippers accusing the country's four largest railroad carriers of conspiring to fix fuel surcharge prices.

  8. October 11, 2017

    Rail Shippers Denied Cert. In Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Row

    A group of rail shippers lost their bid for class certification in long-running multidistrict litigation accusing railroad giants of conspiring to fix fuel surcharges after a D.C. federal judge ruled Tuesday that there were still some individualized issues and the plaintiffs' model for calculating damages was flawed.

  9. September 27, 2016

    Rail Cos. Blast 'Rigged' Damages Model In Fuel Charge Suit

    Railroads accused of conspiring to fix fuel surcharges claimed in D.C. federal court Tuesday that an expert hired by a putative class of shippers rigged his economic analysis to come up with billions of dollars in damages, the latest volley in a class recertification battle.

  10. September 26, 2016

    Rail Shippers Fight To Recertify Price-Fixing Class

    A group of rail shippers on Monday fired its opening salvo against Union Pacific Railroad Co., BNSF Railway Co. and others in an attempt to recertify a multibillion-dollar class action accusing the companies of price-fixing fuel surcharges, telling a D.C. federal judge at the start of a weeklong proceeding that the case presents common issues for all class members and should not be individualized.