The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 Presidents Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 Presidents Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Trial Academy Master Class 6.0
    • The Business Of Law
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

Antitrust Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Sanctioned in Merger Case

Posted on March 25, 2013 by Andrew Findley

Thomson Reuters; March 25, 2013

(Reuters) – Joseph Alioto, a prominent plaintiffs’ antitrust attorney in San Francisco, has been ordered to pay attorneys’ fees for defendants in a merger case, a rare reprimand that has fueled a debate over the merits of private litigation.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday ordered Alioto and the Alioto Law Firm to pay defendants $67,495 in a case challenging the 2011 merger between Southwest Airlines Co and AirTran Holdings Inc. The court had previously granted a motion for sanctions filed against Alioto for what the airlines argued was “unreasonable and vexatious” litigation.

“That almost never happens,” said Robert Lande, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law. “It’s routinely asked for but rarely granted.”

Alioto did not return a call seeking comment.

The case is notable further because of the debate it set off about the value of private antitrust lawsuits challenging mergers and whether the order would deter other plaintiffs’ lawyers from bringing such cases. It also provided a peek into the fees generated by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, which represented the airlines.

Alioto, who is the son of a former San Francisco mayor, first brought the case on behalf of passengers on May 3, 2011, alleging the deal would hurt consumers. The lawsuit sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the merger from going through. Southwest and AirTran had closed the merger the day before, less than a week after receiving clearance from the U.S. Department of Justice.

After the district court dismissed the case, Alioto further pursued it by filing an emergency motion with the 9th Circuit seeking an order forcing Southwest and AirTran to keep their assets separate. The motion was denied on June 2, 2011.

In their subsequent motion for sanctions, the defendants called into question similar lawsuits filed by Alioto contesting mergers.

“Counsel’s modus operandi in these cases is to sue companies that are attempting to complete high profile mergers at the most time-sensitive stage of the transaction in hopes of extracting a cash settlement that does not benefit (and indeed ultimately increases the costs to) the public at large,” lawyers for the defendants wrote.

NEW LOW OR JUSTIFIED?

In the Southwest case, the defendants said, Alioto had “sunk to a new low” by bringing a case the day after the deal had closed and then by later filing an emergency appeal that had sought broader relief than the original complaint.

Alioto argued in response that the lawsuits criticized by the defendants were “fully and completely justified” and that the appeal to the 9th Circuit was necessary to prevent the “alleged, unlawful, technically consummated merger.”

Alioto received support from one judge on the 9th Circuit. When the panel refused to rehear arguments on the sanction motion, Judge Ronald Gould dissented.

Gould wrote that the “requisite degree of recklessness of plaintiffs or their counsel has not been shown, and the sanctions award may incorrectly discourage vigorous private prosecution of antitrust law claims that is beneficial to the public.”

The 9th Circuit’s attorneys’ fee order was first issued on March 5, 2013, and it held Alioto, his firm and three other attorneys at his firm jointly and severally liable for payment.

On Thursday, the 9th Circuit amended its order to make only Alioto and his law firm responsible for paying the attorneys’ fees. The change followed a stipulation filed by both sides that the other lawyers should not be included in the order.

In its order, the 9th Circuit did not grant all of the fees that Southwest had sought for work opposing Alioto’s appeal. Skadden Arps submitted a request for around $82,000 for 126.5 hours of work by six attorneys and one paralegal. Among the top billers in the group were partner Steven Sunshine whose rate was listed at $986 an hour and Gary MacDonald at $927 an hour.

The 9th Circuit found some of Skadden’s request unreasonable. For example, it disallowed $1,125.60 in fees incurred by an associate for traveling from Palo Alto to San Francisco to attend “oral argument in an unrelated appeal.” The court noted that an audio recording of the argument was available to the associate the next day.

Skadden Arps declined to comment.

The case is Taleff v. Southwest Airlines Co, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-16173.

For Taleff: Joseph Alioto of the Alioto Law Firm.

For Defendants: Steven Sunshine, Gary MacDonald and Sara Bensley of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2013/03_-_March/Antitrust_plaintiffs__lawyer_sanctioned_in_merger_case/

Posted in Blog, Newsletter

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

No thumbnail available

Things to Consider When You Sue an Insurance Provider

May 24th, 2022

We are all too acquainted with insurance coverage in our everyday lives. According to Investopedia, everyone should have[Read More...]
The Rochester Diocese Offers a $147 Million Settlement to Sex Abuse Survivors

The Rochester Diocese Offers a $147 Million Settlement to Sex Abuse Survivors

May 23rd, 2022

The Rochester Catholic Diocese is offering a $147 million settlement to sex abuse survivors. This offer comes as a federal ba[Read More...]
Jury Awards $77.5 Million to an Army Veteran in a 3M Earplug Case

Jury Awards $77.5 Million to an Army Veteran in a 3M Earplug Case

May 23rd, 2022

A jury in Pensacola, Fla., federal court on Friday ordered 3M to pay $77.5 million to a U.S. Army veteran who said he suffe[Read More...]
The New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds $165 Million Damage Awards in a Deadly FedEx Crash

The New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds $165 Million Damage Awards in a Deadly FedEx Crash

May 20th, 2022

The New Mexico Supreme Court on Thursday upheld $165 million of jury awards against FedEx in a wrongful-death lawsuit stemmin[Read More...]
Noom Reaches a $56 Million Class Action Settlement Over Its Autorenewal and Cancellation Policy

Noom Reaches a $56 Million Class Action Settlement Over Its Autorenewal and Cancellation Policy

May 20th, 2022

Weight-loss program Noom has agreed to a $56 million settlement to resolve class action claims regarding its autorenewal and [Read More...]

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.