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. March 22, 2021

    Shippers Blast Rail Cos. Bid For Appeal On Evidence Issue

    The country's biggest rail giants can't put long-running antitrust multidistrict litigation on hold while they appeal a D.C. federal court's decision not to allow them to nix evidence that would give them "de facto" immunity, the shippers bringing the suit argue.

  2. March 08, 2021

    Rail Cos. Call Discovery Order 'Prime Candidate' For Appeal

    The country's four rail giants have urged a D.C. federal judge to let them immediately appeal his refusal to exclude the bulk of the evidence in long-running multidistrict litigation alleging a fuel surcharge price-fixing scheme, arguing the decision affects the health of "the entire railroad industry."

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.