Law-of-the-case doctrine in consolidated/MDL antitrust proceedings

DEFENSE · 15usc1:x-law-of-the-case

Procedural defense invoked where prior rulings in a multidistrict litigation address overlapping conspiracy allegations.

Exact element source

is declared to be illegal

Source: docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec1; Unicode character offsets [220:245] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c248965c2c712de1e3f3d52a17be4c90dfdcac5d3f9fea0b7220b164e2c2973.

All variants

Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants
Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
offensive-by-plaintiff/separate-mdl-action-must-state-own-claim		0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1	0	No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-3d/351/0698-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — applied/procedural

How courts decided this element

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
Case	Element	Holding and scope	Variant	Exact source quotations
/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018	Law-of-the-case doctrine in consolidated/MDL antitrust proceedings	not Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: law Not a defense: it is the PLAINTIFF's preclusion-type argument (the earlier ruling that it was a boycott target binds the court), rejected. `scope procedural` keeps it out of the instance counts; the `defense` kind still inverts the parties.	offensive-by-plaintiff/separate-mdl-action-must-state-own-claim	The Court's earlier ruling insofar as it addressed a § 1 conspiracy reaching trueEX was made on the basis of complaints in two other cases: the putative class action brought by investor plaintiffs and the joint action brought by Javelin and Tera. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01`; Unicode character offsets [9731:9977] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a`. Evidence kind: fact; polarity: cuts-against; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) In an MDL proceeding, each lawsuit consolidated within the MDL must independently state a claim. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01`; Unicode character offsets [10860:10956] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a`. Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged) The Court therefore evaluates trueEX's complaint de novo , unconstrained by the law of the case doctrine. Source: `docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01`; Unicode character offsets [12874:12979] (end exclusive); SHA-256 `3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a`. Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations

interpretation

In an MDL proceeding, each lawsuit consolidated within the MDL must independently state a claim.

/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018

In an MDL proceeding, each lawsuit consolidated within the MDL must independently state a claim.

Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [10860:10956] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a.

Procedural defense invoked where prior rulings in a multidistrict litigation address overlapping conspiracy allegations.