Source: cases/15usc1/f3d-907-1264-us-v-kemp-assocs.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_907/1264_01/index.html
Accordingly, the August 17, 2016, indictment was not barred by the statute of limitations.
Accordingly, we hold that the district court's rule of reason order does not fall within our interlocutory appellate jurisdiction to review.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash1 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f3d/907/1264-01 name United States v. Kemp & Assocs., Inc. cite 907 F.3d 1264 (2018) court United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit date 2018-10-31 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_907/1264_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_907.jsonl sha1=bd631aa570e79cdf3d2103ed78d9f38bb712e42c chars=40318 opinion op : majority by Ebel @0..40318 controlling ? opinion: unanimous panel opinion; body @0..37952, its appended footnotes @37952..40318 (same opinion, one span). No separate opinion in the text. party us : United States (prosecution; the claimant) party defendants : Kemp & Associates, Inc. (heir location service) and its Vice President/COO Daniel Mannix (indicted defendants, appellees) theory alloc : single-count indictment: agreement with a competing heir location service to allocate heirs (customers) and share the contingency fees collected from allocated heirs law 15usc1 role applied posture criminal; single-count § 1 indictment (customer allocation); district court ordered the case tried under the rule of reason and dismissed the indictment as time-barred; on the government's appeal CA10 reversed the limitations dismissal on the face of the indictment, dismissed the appeal of the rule-of-reason order for want of jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731, denied mandamus, and remanded result remanded ? other: result was `claimant-won`. The government won the only statutory question decided (limitations) but no element of the offence is adjudicated and its challenge to the rule-of-reason order was dismissed; `remanded` (indictment reinstated for further proceedings) describes the outcome more truthfully. `mixed` would also be defensible. defense statute-of-limitations : not-satisfied [pleaded] party defendants us theory alloc route accrual pattern allocation agreement said to have ended years earlier; fee-sharing payments on allocated estates continued into the five-year window rule @7770..8031 [quoted] | A Sherman Act conspiracy, such as the one alleged here, remains actionable "until its purpose has been achieved or abandoned, and the statute of limitations does not run so long as the co-conspirators engage in overt acts designed to accomplish its objectives." fact @4504..4676 [supports] | Based on an email from Mannix to other Kemp employees, Defendants claim that any "formal" agreement between the alleged co-conspirators ended sometime before July 30, 2008. fact @13603..13903 [cuts-against] | Furthermore, the Indictment alleges on its face that as part of the unlawful agreement the companies agreed "that the co-conspirator company to which heirs were allocated would pay to the other co-conspirator company a portion of the contingency fees ultimately collected from those allocated heirs." fact @5684..5952 [cuts-against] | Defendants did acknowledge, however, that "for some of the estates subject to the [agreement], certain administration work continued into the five-year period prior to the Indictment, including the recovery of money for heirs, and the payment of the firms themselves." held @14544..14634 | Accordingly, the August 17, 2016, indictment was not barred by the statute of limitations. gloss Polarity is relative to the DEFENSE: the 2008 end of the "formal" agreement supports the time bar; fee-sharing payments inside the window cut against it. Following Evans (bid rigging: conspiracy continues while payments on the rigged contract are received), distributing fees on allocated estates after August 17, 2011 is an overt act in furtherance. ? basis: decided de novo on the face of the indictment (allegations taken as true) plus the defendants' acknowledgment of in-period payments, hence [pleaded]; Flash had [law]. The defense remains open on the evidence at trial. element restraint.per-se : not-reached scope procedural party us defendants theory alloc route _procedural pattern government appeal of a pretrial order selecting the rule of reason for a charged customer allocation: no jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731, mandamus denied rule @18596..18777 [quoted] | It is undisputed that "an agreement to allocate or divide customers between competitors within the same horizontal market, constitutes a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act." fact @3801..4068 [supports] | Under this agreement, when the two companies both contacted a potential heir, "the co-conspirator company that first contacted that heir would be allocated certain remaining heirs to that estate who had yet to sign a contract with an Heir Location Services provider." held @27388..27528 | Accordingly, we hold that the district court's rule of reason order does not fall within our interlocutory appellate jurisdiction to review. gloss The district court held the per se rule inapplicable (unusual structure, few estates, obscure industry). This court does not review that ruling; in dicta, while denying mandamus, it calls the defendants' distinctions "mostly unpersuasive" and lists authorities for the district court to consider on remand (@30529..36689). Nothing here is a merits ruling on the mode of analysis.