All Star Carts and Vehicles, Inc. v. BFI Canada Income Fund, 280 F.R.D. 78

This antitrust action concerns Defendants’ contracts in the Long Island small containerized waste hauling market.
Plaintiffs alleged a conspiracy to restrain trade and an attempt to monopolize under the Sherman Act §1 and §2; the court previously dismissed §1 and §2 conspiracy claims but allowed a §2 claim of attempted monopolization.
The relevant market is small containerized waste hauling and disposal services in Long Island; the geographic area is the Long Island, New York area.
The class would include all persons/entities that contracted with Defendants for small containerized waste disposal in the relevant market from May 5, 2004 to present.
The alleged anti-competitive contracts (“Evergreen” clauses and related provisions) are claimed to raise entry barriers and entrench Defendants’ market power; issues center on common proof of market power and contract effects.
The motions before the court are Defendants’ motion to exclude Dr. Stevens’ expert and Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification under Rule 23.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 23(a) commonality satisfied?	Stevens provides common questions on market power and area of effective competition	Contract variations negate common issues across the class	Commonality satisfied under Rule 23(a)
Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3)	Common proof via Stevens’ methodology shows generalized causation	Defendants’ contract variation and individualized damages defeat predominance	Predominance satisfied; class certified under 23(b)(3)
Injunctive relief class under Rule 23(b)(2)	Injunctive relief to declare contracts anti-competitive applies to all class members	Damages alongside injunctive relief challenges 23(b)(2) certification	Injunctive class certified under 23(b)(2)
Admissibility of Stevens’ expert under Rule 702	Stevens is qualified; methodology is disclosed and applicable	Stevens’ methodology criticized as unreliable	Stevens’ report admitted; gatekeeping satisfied

Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, 562 F. Supp. 2d 392 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (provides framework for market definition and monocular power proof)
In re Buspirone Patent Litigation, 210 F.R.D. 43 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (class certification considerations in SDNY context)
Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1997) (liberal approach to class certification; commonality focus)
In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation, 280 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2001) (predominance standard for 23(b)(3))
Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2001) (class-wide injury considerations and certification)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (gatekeeping standard for expert testimony)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (reliability and relevance gatekeeping)
PepsiCo, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 315 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2002) (monopolization; common issues and market power)
Heerwagen v. Clear Channel Communications, 435 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2006) (relevant market and geographic market concepts)
United States v. Grinnell, 384 U.S. 563 (1966) (monopoly power and exclusionary power standards)