The
United States District Court, Northern District of California in an interesting
case titled as IN RE: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION has answered this question in affirmative and held;
“
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1)
119. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, reallege and incorporate herein by reference each of the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, and further allege against Defendants and each of them as follows:120. Defendants entered into and engaged in unlawful agreements in restraint of the trade and commerce described above in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Beginning no later than January 2005 and continuing at least through 2009, Defendants engaged in continuing trusts in restraint of trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
121. Defendants’ agreements have included concerted action and undertakings among the Defendants with the purpose and effect of: (a) fixing the compensation of Plaintiffs and the Class at artificially low levels; and (b) eliminating, to a substantial degree, competition among Defendants for skilled labor.
122. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ combinations and contracts to restrain trade and eliminate competition for skilled labor, members of the Class have suffered injury to their property and have been deprived of the benefits of free and fair competition on the merits.
123. The unlawful agreements among Defendants has had the following effects among others:a. competition among Defendants for skilled labor has been suppressed, restrained, and eliminated; andb. Plaintiffs and class members have received lower compensation from Defendants than they otherwise would have received in the absence of Defendants’ unlawful agreements, and, as a result, have been injured in their property and have suffered damages in an amount according to proof at trial.
124. The acts done by each Defendant as part of, and in furtherance of, their contracts, combinations or conspiracies were authorized, ordered, or done by their respective officers, directors, agents, employees, or representatives while actively engaged in the management of each Defendant’s affairs.
125. Defendants’ contracts, combinations and/or conspiracies are per se violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
126. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Class seek three times their damages caused by Defendants’ violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the costs of bringing suit, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants’ from ever again entering into similar agreements in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Violations of the Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16720, et seq.)
127. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, reallege and incorporate herein by reference each of the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, and further alleges against Defendants and each of them as follows:
128. Defendants entered into and engaged in an unlawful trust in restraint of the trade and commerce described above in violation of California Business and Professions Code section 16720. Beginning no later than January 2005 and continuing at least through 2009, Defendants engaged in continuing trusts in restraint of trade and commerce in violation of the Cartwright Act.
129. Defendants’ trusts have included concerted action and undertakings among the Defendants with the purpose and effect of: (a) fixing the compensation of Plaintiffs and the Class at artificially low levels; and (b) eliminating, to a substantial degree, competition among Defendants for skilled labor.
130. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ combinations and contracts to restrain trade and eliminate competition for skilled labor, members of the Class have suffered injury to their property and have been deprived of the benefits of free and fair competition on the merits.
131. The unlawful trust among Defendants has had the following effects, among others:a. competition among Defendants for skilled labor has been suppressed, restrained, and eliminated; andb. Plaintiffs and Class members have received lower compensation from Defendants than they otherwise would have received in the absence of Defendants’ unlawful trust, and, as a result, have been injured in their property and have suffered damages in an amount according to proof at trial.
132. Plaintiffs and members of the Class are “persons” within the meaning of the Cartwright Act as defined in section 16702.
133. The acts done by each Defendant as part of, and in furtherance of, their contracts, combinations or conspiracies were authorized, ordered, or done by their respective officers, directors, agents, employees, or representatives while actively engaged in the management of each Defendant’s affairs.
134. Defendants’ contracts, combinations and/or conspiracies are per se violations of the Cartwright Act.
135. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Class seek three times their damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the Cartwright Act, the costs of bringing suit, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants’ from ever again entering into similar agreements in violation of the Cartwright Act.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600)
136. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, reallege and incorporate herein by reference each of the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, and further alleges against Defendants and each of them as follows:
137. Defendants entered into, implemented, and enforced express agreements that are unlawful and void under Section 16600.
138. Defendants’ agreements and conspiracy have included concerted action and undertakings among the Defendants with the purpose and effect of: (a) reducing open competition among Defendants for skilled labor; (b) reducing employee mobility; (c) eliminating opportunities for employees to pursue lawful employment of their choice; and (d) limiting employee professional betterment.
139. Defendants’ agreements and conspiracy are contrary to California’s settled legislative policy in favor of open competition and employee mobility, and are therefore void and unlawful.
140. Defendants’ agreements and conspiracy were not intended to protect and were not limited to protect any legitimate proprietary interest of Defendants.
141. Defendants’ agreements and conspiracy do not fall within any statutory exception to Section 16600.
142. The acts done by each Defendant as part of, and in furtherance of, their contracts, combinations or conspiracies were authorized, ordered, or done by their respective officers, directors, agents, employees, or representatives while actively engaged in the management of each Defendant’s affairs.
143. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and members of the Class seek a judicial declaration that Defendants’ agreements and conspiracy are void as a matter of law under Section 16600, and a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants’ from ever again entering into similar agreements in violation of Section 16600.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Unfair Competition in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.)
144. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, reallege and incorporate herein by reference each of the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, and further alleges against Defendants as follows:
145. Defendants’ actions to restrain trade and fix the total compensation of their employees constitute unfair competition and unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and practices in violation of California Business and Professional Code sections 17200, et seq.
146. The conduct of Defendants in engaging in combinations with others with the intent, purpose, and effect of creating and carrying out restrictions in trade and commerce; eliminating competition among them for skilled labor; and fixing the compensation of their employees at artificially low levels, constitute and was intended to constitute unfair competition and unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and practices within the meaning of California Business and Professions Code section 17200.
147. Defendants also violated California’s Unfair Competition Law by violating the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, and/or by violating Section 16600.
148. As a result of Defendants’ violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200, Defendants have unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of Plaintiffs and the Class. The unjust enrichment continues to accrue as the unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and practices continue.
149. To prevent their unjust enrichment, Defendants and their co-conspirators should be required pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 17203 and 17204 to disgorge their illegal gains for the purpose of making full restitution to all injured class members identified hereinabove. Defendants should also be permanently enjoined from continuing their violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200.
150. The acts and business practices, as alleged herein, constituted and constitute a common, continuous, and continuing course of conduct of unfair competition by means of unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent business acts or practices within the meaning of California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., including, but in no way limited to, violations of the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, and/or Section 16600.
151. Defendants’ acts and business practices as described above, whether or not in violation of the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, and/or Section 16600 are otherwise unfair, unconscionable, unlawful, and fraudulent.
152. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, requests the following classwide equitable relief:
a. that a judicial determination and declaration be made of the rights of Plaintiffs and the Class members, and the corresponding responsibilities of Defendants;
b. that Defendants be declared to be financially responsible for the costs and expenses of a Court-approved notice program by mail, broadcast media, and publication designed to give immediate notification to class members; and
c. requiring disgorgement and/or imposing a constructive trust upon Defendants’ ill-gotten gains, freezing Defendants’ assets, and/or requiring Defendants to pay restitution to Plaintiffs and to all members of the Class of all funds acquired by means of any act or practice declared by this Court to be an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter judgment on their behalf and that of the Class by adjudging and decreeing that:
153. This action may be maintained as a class action, with Plaintiffs as the designated Class representatives and their counsel as Class counsel;
154. Defendants have engaged in a trust, contract, combination, or conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and California Business and Professions Code section 16750(a), and that Plaintiffs and the members of the Class have been damaged and injured in their business and property as a result of this violation;
155. The alleged combinations and conspiracy be adjudged and decreed to be per se violations of the Sherman Act and Cartwright Act;
156. Plaintiffs and the members of the Class they represent recover threefold the damages determined to have been sustained by them as a result of the conduct of Defendants, complained of herein, and that judgment be entered against Defendants for the amount so determined;
157. The alleged combinations and conspiracy be adjudged void and unlawful under Section 16600;
158. The conduct of Defendants constitutes unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practice within the meaning of California’s Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.;”
No comments:
Post a Comment