United States v. Kemp & Associates, 2:16-cr-00403

Background

Kemp & Associates, Inc. and VP/part-owner Daniel J. Mannix were indicted (single-count) for a Sherman Act §1 conspiracy to allocate customers with competitor Blake & Blake based on a written set of Guidelines that terminated in July 2008.
Indictment alleges allocation of customers for Heir Location Services and references distribution/receipt of estate-related proceeds; identifies 269 affected estates.
Defendants moved to apply the Rule of Reason and to dismiss the indictment as time-barred (filed March 31, 2017). The court had already ruled the Rule of Reason applies; government sought reconsideration (denied).
The statute of limitations for antitrust conspiracy is five years (18 U.S.C. § 3282(a)); the Guidelines ended July 2008 and the indictment was returned more than eight years later.
The central factual/legal question: whether post-termination administrative acts (e.g., distributing proceeds, completing estate administration) constitute acts in furtherance of the conspiracy that toll or extend the limitations period.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the indictment is time-barred under the 5-year statute of limitations for antitrust conspiracy	Gov’t: receipt/distribution of proceeds and ongoing estate administration were acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, so prosecution is timely	Defs: conspiracy ended when the written Guidelines terminated in July 2008; subsequent administrative acts are not conspiratorial conduct	Dismissed: conspiracy ended with termination of Guidelines; indictment barred by statute of limitations
Whether the alleged conspiracy’s scope includes continued economic enrichment after termination	Gov’t: central object included economic enrichment, making later payments part of the conspiracy	Defs: central object was customer allocation; payments/administration were separate, routine consequences	Held for Defs: central object was allocation; routine estate administration does not extend the conspiracy
Whether the court should reconsider its Rule of Reason ruling	Gov’t: requested reconsideration arguing clear error	Defs: reaffirmed prior ruling; asked court to enter proposed order	Court denied reconsideration; affirmed Rule of Reason ruling
Whether extending the conspiracy to estate-administration events would create arbitrariness in limitations period	Gov’t: (implicit) later events sufficient to sustain conspiracy	Defs: extension would create arbitrary, indefinite tolling based on estate-specific factors	Court agreed with Defs: allowing extension would produce unacceptable arbitrariness; limitations period not extended

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (recognizing statute of limitations as primary guarantee against stale criminal charges)
United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (statutes of limitation protect defendants’ ability to defend)
United States v. Habig, 390 U.S. 222 (criminal statutes of limitation to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose)
United States v. Scharton, 285 U.S. 518 (limitations in favor of repose)
Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (scope of conspiratorial agreement determines duration of conspiracy)
United States v. Qayyum, 451 F.3d 1214 (court bound by indictment language when defining conspiracy scope)
United States v. Inryco, 642 F.2d 290 (Sherman Act conspiracy exists only while acts in furtherance continue)
United States v. Doherty, 867 F.2d 47 (statute of limitations should not be extended indefinitely beyond period of unique threat posed by conspiracy)
United States v. Morgan, 748 F.3d 1024 (criminal conspiracy can be ongoing where central purpose is obtaining/dividing proceeds)
United States v. Evans & Associates Construction Co., 839 F.2d 656 (Sherman Act violation included receipt/distribution of anti-competitive payments)