Immigration Matter and Antitrust Case Against a Tooth Manufacturer

Johnson v. U.S. Attorney General, 07-2820, involved a petition for review, filed by a citizen of Guyana, of BIA's denial of his application for cancellation of removal under the Special Rule for Battered Spouses, 8 U.S.C. section 1229b(b)(2).  However, because the extreme cruelty determination in section 1229b(b)(2) is discretionary and not subject to judicial review, the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

Howard Hess Dental Lab., Inc. v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., No. 08-1693, involved two related antitrust cases brought by two dental laboratories against a manufacturer of artificial tooth and several of its dealers.  In affirming the district court's decision, the court held that with respect to the Hess plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment of their monopolization claim against the manufacturer, the district court properly dismissed the motion.  Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Hess plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and it did not err in dismissing the complaint in Hess. 

With respect to the Jersey Dental plaintiffs' conspiracy claims, the court affirmed the district court's determination that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege the agreement element of their Section 1 and 2 claims of the Sherman Act, and that they failed to adequately allege specific intent.  Lastly, the court held that the district court did not err in its application of Illinois Brick as to Jersey Dental plaintiffs' request for overcharge damages. 

Related Resouces:

• Full text of Johnson v. U.S. Attorney General
• Full text of Howard Hess Dental Lab., Inc. v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc