- Affirmative Recovery
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Ediscovery
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Litigation Support Services
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Disputes
-
September 30, 2020Robins Kaplan Named One of BTI’s “Most Feared Firms in Litigation”
-
September 29, 2020Robins Kaplan Announces Diversity and Inclusion Committee Leadership Transition
-
September 22, 2020New York Law Journal Recognizes Hollis Salzman as a Trailblazer
-
October 2, 2020Global Rights for Women Now
-
October 5-6, 20202020 Corporate Counsel Symposium
-
October 6, 2020Public Counsel William O. Douglas 50th Anniversary Virtual Celebration
-
Summer 2020Following a Varied Legal Career, Judge Jonathan Kobes Begins on the Eighth Circuit
-
September 22, 2020Herbal Patent Protection
-
August 24, 2020Hot off the Presses: California Further Regulates Out-of-State Adjusters in the Wake of Record-Breaking Catastrophic Losses
The State Of Umbrella Damages Under Calif. Antitrust Law
County of San Mateo v. CSL suggests umbrella damages for cartel-motivated price raises by non-cartel members possible for state law claims.
October 7, 2014
Law360, New York (October 07, 2014, 10:08 AM ET) -- Several federal courts have held that damages caused when noncartel members raise prices in response to cartel behavior are not recoverable under the Sherman Act. [1] These courts reason that so‐called “umbrella damages” are "unacceptably speculative and complex" because they require inquiry into whether nonconspirators' prices were caused by the cartel or other pricing considerations. Petroleum Products, 691 F.2d at 1340‐41. Applying these principles, at least one court from the Northern District of California has also barred umbrella damages under state antitrust laws.[2]
All Content © 2003-2012, Portfolio Media, Inc.
The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.
Related Professionals
David Martinez
Partner
Member of the Executive Board;
Pro Bono Chair, Los Angeles Office;
Member of the Firm's Diversity Committee
Related Publications
Related News
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.