[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ custom_padding_last_edited=”on|desktop” admin_label=”Inner Top Banner and Title Section” module_class=”inner-banner-sec” _builder_version=”4.27.0″ background_image=”https:\/\/www.markhamlawfirm.com\/mystaging\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/court-header-2.jpg” custom_padding=”120px||20px||false|false” custom_padding_tablet=”80px||20px||false|false” custom_padding_phone=”50px||||false|false” background_last_edited=”on|phone” locked=”off” collapsed=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row module_class=”pstatic” _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ module_class=”pstatic” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Title” module_class=”leftborder” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ text_font=”|900|||||||” text_text_color=”#ffffff” header_font=”|700||on|||||” header_text_align=”left” header_text_color=”#303030″ header_font_size=”40px” header_line_height=”1.3em” header_2_font=”|700|||||||” header_2_text_align=”left” header_2_text_color=”#ffffff” header_2_font_size=”27px” header_2_line_height=”1.25em” header_3_font=”|700|||||||” header_3_text_color=”#ffffff” header_3_font_size=”27px” header_3_line_height=”1.2em” max_width=”700px” module_alignment=”left” custom_padding=”||||false|false” custom_padding_tablet=”” custom_padding_phone=”||||false|false” custom_padding_last_edited=”on|phone” hover_enabled=”0″ text_font_size_tablet=”” text_font_size_phone=”20px” text_font_size_last_edited=”on|phone” header_text_align_tablet=”left” header_text_align_phone=”left” header_text_align_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_font_size_tablet=”36px” header_font_size_phone=”30px” header_font_size_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_line_height_tablet=”1.3em” header_line_height_phone=”1.3em” header_line_height_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_2_text_align_tablet=”left” header_2_text_align_phone=”left” header_2_text_align_last_edited=”on|phone” header_2_font_size_tablet=”32px” header_2_font_size_phone=”24px” header_2_font_size_last_edited=”on|phone” header_3_font_size_tablet=”27px” header_3_font_size_phone=”21px” header_3_font_size_last_edited=”on|phone” text_orientation_tablet=”” text_orientation_phone=”” text_orientation_last_edited=”on|phone” header_2_text_shadow_style=”preset1″ header_2_text_shadow_horizontal_length=”2px” header_2_text_shadow_vertical_length=”2px” header_2_text_shadow_blur_strength=”2px” header_2_text_shadow_color=”#303030″ global_colors_info=”{}” custom_css_main_element_last_edited=”on|desktop” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”Main Content Section” module_class=”inner-content-sec” _builder_version=”4.27.0″ locked=”off” collapsed=”on” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Main Text” _builder_version=”4.27.0″ text_font=”||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ header_font=”|900|||||||” header_font_size=”48px” header_2_font=”|700||on|||||” header_2_text_align=”left” header_2_text_color=”#000000″ header_2_line_height=”1.2em” text_line_height_tablet=”” text_line_height_phone=”” text_line_height_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_font_size_tablet=”36px” header_font_size_phone=”27px” header_font_size_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_2_text_align_tablet=”left” header_2_text_align_phone=”” header_2_text_align_last_edited=”on|desktop” header_2_font_size_tablet=”” header_2_font_size_phone=”27px” header_2_font_size_last_edited=”on|desktop” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
Below is a list of the antitrust cases that Mr. Markham has litigated during his career. Since 2005, he has been the lead attorney for plaintiffs in a succession of “competitor suits,” which are typically brought by smaller but substantial competitors against their dominant rivals. Several of these cases lasted several years and consumed much of Mr. Markham’s professional time. He therefore began to accept only a few cases at a time in 2005, so that he could litigate each one rather than manage a larger number that would be mostly litigated by other attorneys.<\/p>\n
Mr. Markham also participated one time as class co-counsel in a substantial antitrust class-action. Much earlier in his career, when he was an associate in a global law firm, he helped more senior attorneys to litigate several antitrust cases and was eventually given his own antitrust case to manage during all pre-trial proceedings.<\/p>\n
Curtin Maritime Corp. v. Santa Catalina Island Co<\/strong>. <\/em>In this case, Mr. Markham was the lead attorney for a maritime shipper in a successful antitrust appeal against a rival shipper and the owner of the only commercial port that serves Santa Catalina Island (Curtin Maritime Corp. v. Santa Catalina Island Co.<\/em>, 9th Cir., 2018, Appeal No. 18-55338). By this appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated his client’s principal antitrust claim and remanded the case to federal district court in Los Angeles. The case was subsequently settled on confidential terms.<\/p>\n Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. v. AMN Healthcare, Inc<\/strong>. <\/em>In this case, Mr. Markham was the lead trial and appellate attorney for a national provider of travel nurses in antitrust litigation against the dominant provider, which ceased using a principal challenged practice after the case began (Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. v. AMN Healthcare, Inc., <\/em>S.D. Cal., 2017, Case No. 3:17-cv-00205; Ninth Circuit, Case No. 20-55679). This case attracted national attention and led to two published decisions by which the defendants prevailed on summary judgment. On appeal, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice intervened to urge the Ninth Circuit to apply classical principles of antitrust jurisprudence to employers’ no-poaching agreements. Its statement of the law exactly agreed with Mr. Markham\u2019s statement of it in his own submissions to the federal district court and then in this appeal. This case led to two published decisions, which have since been cited by many other courts.<\/p>\n Orchard Supply Hardware LLC v. Home Depot USA, Inc<\/em><\/strong>. In this case, Mr. Markham was the lead attorney for a publicly-traded retailer of hardware supplies, which asserted antitrust claims and false advertising claims against the dominant national retailer and two of its suppliers. The case led to two published decisions by a federal district court in San Francisco. By these decisions, the smaller retailer\u2019s claims largely survived the dominant retailer’s protracted challenge to their legal sufficiency. The case was thereafter settled by a confidential agreement. (Orchard Supply Hardware LLC v. Home Depot USA, Inc., <\/em>N.D. Cal., 2012. Case No. 12-cv-6361).<\/p>\n SMRT LLC v. Resmed Corp<\/strong>. <\/em>In this case, Mr. Markham was the lead attorney for a distributor of medical devices. On its behalf, he asserted antitrust claims under California’s Cartwright Act against two manufacturers and their favored distributor. The case was litigated in California Superior Court for San Diego County\u00a0 (SMRT LLC v. Resmed Corp.,\u00a0<\/em>Cal. Sup. Ct., S.D. Cty., 2011. Case No. 37-2011-00087297). <\/em>The plaintiff’s claims largely survived the defendants\u2019 aggressive litigation of the pleadings, then settled on confidential terms shortly after discovery began.<\/p>\n Jensen Enterprises, Inc. v. Oldcastle Precast, Inc. <\/em><\/strong>In this case, which ran for longer than four years, Mr. Markham served as the lead trial and appellate attorney for the largest private manufacturer of precast concrete products in North America. On its behalf, he asserted antitrust claims in federal district court in San Francisco against the world\u2019s largest manufacturer of these products and its trading partner, a global telecommunications firm (Jensen Enterprises, Inc. v. Oldcastle Precast, Inc., <\/em>N.D. Cal., 2006. Case No. C 06 0247). Shortly after Mr. Markham filed the case, the defendants afforded substantial prospective<\/em> relief, ending the parties\u2019 principal dispute at the outset of the case. The plaintiff’s claims mostly survived the defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss, and its surviving claims all withstood the defendants\u2019 first set of motions for summary judgment. Shortly before trial, however, the district court granted summary judgment on defendants\u2019 second set of motions for summary judgment. The district court\u2019s grant of summary judgment was affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit.<\/p>\n Thompson v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc<\/em><\/strong>. In this case, Mr. Markham was co-counsel with several other attorneys in an antitrust class-action that challenged restraints on competitive advertising practiced by the world\u2019s largest retailer of contact lenses and several of its smaller competitors. Mr. Markham first raised this challenge in a case entitled Stillings v. 1-800 Contacts<\/em> (N.D. Cal., 2016, Case No. 3:16-cv-5400), which was later consolidated with several similar, subsequently filed cases in case entitled Thompson v. 1-800 Contacts,<\/em> Inc. (D. Utah, 2016. Case No. 2:16-cv-01183). The consolidated cases were settled by a series of favorable, court-approved agreements that resulted in overall payments of $40 million to classes of plaintiffs harmed by the defendants\u2019 anticompetitive practices.<\/p>\n Mr. Markham obtained a complete exoneration for a manufacturer of polypropylene products that was initially deemed a \u201ctarget\u201d of a criminal antitrust investigation of alleged price-fixing among manufacturers of polypropylene products. The investigation was led by the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice as well as various US Attorney\u2019s Offices.<\/p>\n Mr. Markham also negotiated an antitrust amnesty agreement for a shipping company, which thereby averted all liability in a market-allocation case that entailed onerous criminal penalties and enormous civil liability for the remaining companies.<\/p>\n He also represented an individual defendant who was investigated by federal authorities for his role in alleged criminal bid-rigging at foreclosure auctions in Northern California.<\/p>\nANTITRUST CLASS-ACTION<\/strong><\/h2>\n
CRIMINAL ANTITRUST MATTERS<\/strong><\/h2>\n
ANTITRUST LITIGATION AT COUDERT BROTHERS<\/strong><\/h2>\n