descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

State of New York, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Julius Nasso Concrete Corp. Nasso/s&a, a Joint Venture and Nicholas Auletta, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, Edward J. Halloran S&a Concrete Co., Inc. S&a Structures, Inc. A&s Structures, Inc. A&s Concrete Co. And Alvin O. Chattin, Cedar Park Concrete Corp. Cedar Park Construction Corp. Certified Concrete, Co. Joseph Depaola Dic Concrete Corp Dic Industries, Inc. Walter Goldstein Ilj Enterprise, Inc. Underhill Industries Lizza Industries, Incorporated Marine Pollution Joseph Martinelli North Berry Concrete Corp. Underhill Construction Corp. Transit-Mix Concrete Corporation Frank Phelan and Century-Maxim Construction Corp.

Citations: 202 F.3d 82; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 882Docket: 1998

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; January 24, 2000; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed a case involving the State of New York's antitrust lawsuit against several defendants, including the Nasso defendants and Nicholas Auletta, concerning a bid-rigging conspiracy for concrete construction projects. The district court had granted summary judgment to the State on antitrust liability, applying collateral estoppel from prior criminal convictions, but dismissed the State's damages claim based on unreliable expert testimony. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on liability but vacated the damages ruling, remanding the case for a new trial on causation and damages. The court clarified the standard of proof for causation in antitrust cases, indicating that evidence of antitrust activity could suffice and that the State's burden was set too high. It also addressed the admissibility of expert testimony, emphasizing the need for a more lenient approach to proving damages in antitrust cases. The court considered the roles of corporations under respondeat superior principles and the challenge of establishing market prices without competitive data. Ultimately, the decision was partially affirmed and vacated, with instructions for a retrial focusing on causation and damages.

Legal Issues Addressed

Admissibility of Expert Testimony on Damages

Application: The district court's rejection of the State's expert testimony on damages as unreliable was challenged, and the appellate court ordered a new trial to reassess the damages with a clarified standard.

Reasoning: The court vacates the district court's decision and orders a new trial due to confusion over the State's burden, the issues available for trial, and the standards applied to damages evidence.

Collateral Estoppel in Antitrust Liability

Application: The district court's summary judgment in favor of the State on antitrust liability was based on collateral estoppel from a prior criminal conviction, which precluded the defendants from disputing their involvement in the conspiracy.

Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the district court's summary judgment regarding antitrust liability but vacated the ruling on damages, remanding the case for a new trial on both causation and damages.

Impact of Bid-Rigging Conspiracies on Market Prices

Application: Damages in bid-rigging conspiracies are typically calculated as the difference between the actual price and the price that would have prevailed without the conspiracy, which the court emphasized for the new trial.

Reasoning: In bid-rigging conspiracies, damages typically equal the difference between the actual price paid and the price that would have prevailed without the conspiracy.

Respondeat Superior and Corporate Liability

Application: The principles of respondeat superior were applied to bind corporations controlled by individual defendants to findings precluding them from contesting liability based on individual criminal convictions.

Reasoning: The court also applied respondeat superior principles, holding that the corporations controlled by the individual defendants were similarly barred from contesting the findings.

Standard of Proof for Causation in Antitrust Cases

Application: The court vacated the district court's finding of no causation, noting that evidence of antitrust activity alone could suffice for causation, and ordered a new trial with a clarified burden of proof.

Reasoning: The district court set an excessively high burden on the State to prove causation in this antitrust case, where evidence of antitrust activity alone could suffice for causation.