In re ATM FEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Filing 658

ORDER. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 6/21/2010. (crblc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE ATM FEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

No. C 04-2676 CRB ORDER /

In light of the Court's Order DENYING Defendants' joint motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, the Court wishes to proceed to summary judgment on the limited issue of whether Plaintiffs lack standing to bring an antitrust claim for damages under the rule set forth in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977). In response to a question posed by the Court at the hearing on its Motion to Dismiss, Defendants stated that there are members of the Star Network that consistently pay out more in Interchange Fees than they receive. In their opening brief, Defendants should identify evidence supporting this assertion and explain why these direct purchasers do not fall within the recognized exceptions to the Illinois Brick rule. Briefs on the Illinois Brick issue are due according to the following schedule: July 9, 2010: July 19, 2010: July 26, 2010: Defendants' Opening Brief due. Plaintiffs' Answering Brief due. Defendants' Reply Brief due.

The Court will decide Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Motion to Reconsider its September 4, 2009 Order after it resolves the issue of Plaintiffs' standing under Illinois

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Brick. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2010

CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\CRBALL\2004\2676\Order re Illinois Brick.wpd

2