Fujifilm Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc. v. Goldman Sachs & Co. et al

Filing 242

CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 240 Memorandum & Opinion. in favor of Glencore AG, Glencore International AG, Glencore Ltd., Goldman Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs International, Henry Bath LLC, J. Aron & Company, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., JPMorgan Sec urities PLC, Metro International Trade Services LLC, Pacorini Metals USA, LLC, Pacorini Metals Vlissingen B.V. against Fujifilm Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc.. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated February 17, 2021, the Court grants defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the Individual Purchaser plaintiffs' claims. All claims brought by plaintiffs Agfa, Mag, Kodak, and Fujifilm are dismissed for lack of antitrust standing. Accordingly, all claims in case numbers 14 Civ. 211; 14 Civ. 217; 14 Civ. 6849; and 15 Civ. 8307 are dismissed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 2/19/2021) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal) (dt)

Case 1:15-cv-08307-PAE Document 242 Filed 02/19/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------X
IN RE ALUMINUM WAREHOUSING
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
This Document Relates To:
Agfa Corporation and AGFA Graphics
NV v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,
No. 14 Civ. 211 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.)
Mag Instrument, Inc. v. The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc.,
No. 14 Civ. 217 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.)

13 MD 2481 (PAE)
14 Civ. 211 (PAE)
14 Civ. 217 (PAE)
14 Civ. 6849 (PAE)
15 Civ. 8307 (PAE)

JUDGMENT

Eastman Kodak Company v. The Goldman
Sachs Group,
No. 14 Civ. 6849 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.)
Fujifilm Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc. v.
Goldman Sachs & Co.,
No. 15 Civ. 8307 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.)
-----------------------------------------------------------X
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons
stated in the Court’s Opinion and Order dated February 17, 2021, the Court grants defendants’
motion for summary judgment as to the Individual Purchaser plaintiffs’ claims. All claims
brought by plaintiffs Agfa, Mag, Kodak, and Fujifilm are dismissed for lack of antitrust standing.
Accordingly, all claims in case numbers 14 Civ. 211; 14 Civ. 217; 14 Civ. 6849; and
15 Civ. 8307 are dismissed. 1

1

See Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 135 S. Ct. 897, 905–06 (2015). Because the Court’s
February 17, 2021 Opinion and Order left in place some claims asserted by Ampal in 14 Civ.
3116, the Court will not enter partial judgment as to the dismissed claims or parties in that action
absent application from those parties. See id. at 906 (Rule 54(b) certification available in such
circumstances). But see Harriscom Svenska AB v. Harris Corp., 947 F.2d 627, 629 (2d Cir. 1991)
(noting that power under Rule 54(b) should be “exercised sparingly”).

Case 1:15-cv-08307-PAE Document 242 Filed 02/19/21 Page 2 of 2

Dated: New York, New York
February 19, 2021

RUBY J. KRAJICK
_________________________
Clerk of Court
BY:
_________________________
Deputy Clerk