Moscone Emblidge & Sater LLP

Moscone, Emblidge and Sater LLP

Antitrust Litigation

The attorneys at Moscone Emblidge & Sater have been involved in many of the most important antitrust class actions of the past decade, protecting consumers and businesses from price fixing conspiracies and unfair business practices.  Currently, Moscone Emblidge & Sater is litigating the following antitrust class actions:

In Re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1950, Master Docket No. 08-cv-2516 (VM) (GWG) - Serve as co-counsel for the City of Oakland, City of Fresno, County of Alameda, and the Fresno County Financing Authority in a federal antitrust lawsuit alleging that financial companies, insurance companies, and brokers engaged in widespread price-fixing and bid-rigging in the multi-billion dollar municipal derivatives industry dating back to 1992. Plaintiffs allege that as a result of this conspiracy, they were deprived of additional money that they otherwise would have received from their bond investments, and that they otherwise could have spent on public projects, like roads, buildings, and mass transit. Click here for a San Francisco Chronicle article about this case

In re: TFT LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1872 -  Represent a class of indirect purchasers of flat computer screens, alleging anti-trust violations of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act against computer screen manufacturers. The action is currently in litigation before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation, USDC No. C0700086 – Serve as co-counsel for the nationwide class of direct and indirect purchasers in an antitrust action against the manufacturers, sellers and distributors of NAND flash memory products in the United States.  (Flash memory is a type of integrated circuit that can be electronically erased and reprogrammed.)

In re Optical Disk Drives (N.D. Cal.):  This lawsuit alleges that major manufacturers of optical disk drives, which are used in or with computers and other types of equipment and play CDs, DVDs, or Blu-Ray discs, conspired to fix prices for such drives.  

In re Musical Instruments and Equipment Antitrust Litigation (S.D. Cal.):  This lawsuit alleges that Guitar Center and the National Association of Music Merchants conspired to maintain, implement, and/or enforce Minimum Advanced Pricing policies that had the purpose and effect of fixing prices, securing higher price levels, restricting retail price competition, and eliminating price discounting in the musical products market. 


Among the other antitrust class actions that attorneys from Moscone Emblidge & Sater have prosecuted over the past eleven years are:

California Methionine II Litigation, J.C.C.P. Nos. 4096 and 4090; Hunt & Behrens v. Degussa-Huls AG, et al. - Represented indirect purchasers of animal feed supplements who allege violations of the Cartwright and Unfair Competition Acts; served on the Executive Committee and as class counsel; class obtained a $3,600,000 settlement.

California Vitamin Cases, J.C.C.P. 4076; Vignoles v. Lonza A.G, et al. – Represented a class of California indirect vitamin purchasers in every level of the chain of distribution alleging violations of Cartwright Act and unfair competition laws by manufacturers of vitamins; class members secured a nationwide settlement of close to $1 billion.

Electronical Carbon Product Cases; JCCP 4294 - Along with other firms, served as counsel for a class of individuals and entities throughout California that purchased electricalcarbon products allegedly at artificially inflated prices. The matter settled with all defendants in the amount of $1,935.000.


Our class action litigation experience is not limited to antitrust and anti-competition claims.  Moscone Emblidge & Sater has also protected consumers from other types of unfair business practices and employees from wage-and-hour violations.  Those cases include the following:

Jefferson v. Chase Home Finance Group, USDC No. C0606510 - Represented a class of borrowers throughout California who made mid-monthly prepayments of principal after Chase represented that it would apply such payments promptly to mortgage accounts. Plaintiff alleged violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Conversion. The lawsuit settled, with Chase agreeing to stop making misrepresentations about the application of prepayments to mortgage accounts and to provide monetary relief representing the total amount of loss resulting from its practice.

Vienna Hall, et al., v. Cinema 7, Inc., et al, SF Superior Court No. 02-409105 - Served as class counsel representing a class of approximately 400 current and former performers who alleged that their employer violated provisions of the California Labor and Business & Professions Codes.  We obtained a judgment in favor of the class regarding liability and then obtained a substantial monetary settlement for the class members.
You are here: Home Practice Areas Antitrust Litigation
Moscone Emblidge & Sater LLP  •  220 Montgomery Street  •  Suite 2100  •  San Francisco, CA 94104  •  Phone (415) 362-3599  •  Fax (415) 362-2006