No. 18-32
Philadelphia Taxi Association, Inc., et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
Response Waived
Tags: anti-competitive anti-competitive-behavior antitrust antitrust-law clayton-act competition economic-harm illegal-activity market-competition market-power marketplace-presence monopolization predatory predatory-conduct predatory-pricing sherman-act unfair-competition
Key Terms:
Antitrust CriminalProcedure WageAndHour JusticiabilityDoctri
Antitrust CriminalProcedure WageAndHour JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2018-09-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)
When is an illegal presence in the marketplace predatory, anti-competitive and threatens to harm competition and not solely competitors?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. When is an illegal presence in the marketplace predatory, anti-competitive and threatens to harm competition and not solely competitors? 2. Does the Second Amended Complaint allege illegal and unlawful conduct in the market which, in fact, is anticompetitive and threatens to harm competition and not simply defendant’s competitors?
Docket Entries
2018-10-01
Petition DENIED.
2018-08-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
2018-07-20
Waiver of right of respondent Uber Technologies, Inc. to respond filed.
2018-06-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 6, 2018)
Attorneys
Philadelphia Taxi Assoc., inc., et al.
Stephen Ross Bolden — Fell & Spalding, Petitioner
Stephen Ross Bolden — Fell & Spalding, Petitioner
Uber Technologies, Inc.
Steven A. Reed — Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Respondent
Steven A. Reed — Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Respondent