Appellate Judges

There’s a Bunch of Federal Judges Departing from this Financial Services Case, But Not Allyson Ho

US District Court Judge Lynn Hughes Departs Involuntarily While One Unnamed 5th Cir. Judge recuses (we assume Jones) and Owen departs too.

Pulse Network, LLC v. Visa, Inc., No. 18-20669 (5th Cir. Apr. 5, 2022)

REPUBLISHED BY LIT: APR 7, 2022

Before Smith, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Stuart Kyle Duncan, Circuit Judge:

This appeal concerns an antitrust dispute between Pulse and Visa, competitors in the multi-billion-dollar debit network market.

After litigation had been dawdling for years, the district court dismissed Pulse’s Sherman Act claims against Visa for lack of antitrust standing.

We reverse in part, remand for further proceedings, and direct reassignment to a different judge.

I. Background

First, a brief sketch of the debit network market (infra I.A), Visa’s challenged policies (infra I.B), and the district court proceedings (infra I.C).

A. The Debit Network Market

1. The Market Structure

To pay for breakfast at the local coffee shop, you swipe (or tap) your debit card. So begins an invisible process that transfers your money to the shop. The electronic architecture that makes this possible is a “debit network.” This diagram shows roughly how it works:

 

Located at the central hub of the diagram, the debit network links the merchant’s bank (or “acquirer”) with the cardholder’s bank (or “issuer”).

Data races back and forth between acquirer and issuer. If the issuer approves the transaction, the price of breakfast zips from your account to the coffee shop’s.

There are two kinds of debit networks.

A “PIN network” is used when you complete a sale by punching in your personal identification number.

A “signature network” is used when you sign your name.

Nearly all debit cards enable one signature network and at least one PIN network.1

Notably, though, the line between the two kinds of networks has blurred:

1 The network logos appear on the back of your card.

companies have developed “PINless” technology that lets PIN networks process sales that would otherwise route through signature networks.

Debit networks are not free.

Two kinds of fees are collected on every transaction.

First, debit network companies collect “network fees,” which are their primary revenue. These are paid by both merchants and issuers.

They are typically low—averaging a few cents per transaction—and slightly higher for signature than for PIN networks.

Second, issuers collect “interchange fees” from merchants’ banks.

These make up the largest portion of the prices merchants pay for debit transactions.2

Both kinds of fees are big business.

In 2019, issuers and merchants paid $2.94 billion and $5.32 billion, respectively, in network fees, and issuers received $24.31 billion in interchange fees.3

The debit network market is “two-sided,” meaning debit network companies compete for business from both merchants and issuers.

Issuers choose which PIN and signature networks to enable on cards; merchants choose which of those networks to route sales over.

Thus, debit network companies compete by

(1) convincing issuers to include their networks on cards

and

(2) convincing merchants to route sales over their networks.

Success means pleasing both sides, because effects on one side ripple over to the other.

If a network’s fees go up, issuers may not choose it, lowering that network’s value to merchants.

If in turn merchants opt not to use that network, it has even less value to issuers, triggering “a feedback loop of declining demand.”

Ohio v. Am. Express Co., 138 S. Ct. 2274, 2281 (2018).

2 See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Debit Card Interchange Fees and Routing, 75 Fed. Reg. 81,722, 81,723–24 (Dec. 28, 2010); Final Rule, Debit Card and Interchange Fees and Routing, 76 Fed. Reg. 43,394, 43,396 (July 20, 2011).

3 See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 2019 Interchange Fee Revenue, Covered Issuer Costs, and Covered Issuer and Merchant Fraud Losses Related to Debit Card Transactions (May 2021) at 12.

2. The Market Players

Having sketched the market, we bring in the relevant players: Visa and Pulse. Both operate debit networks. Pulse has a PIN network; Visa has a signature network (“Visa Debit”) and a PIN network (“Interlink”). Both companies have also developed PINless options: Pulse’s “Pulse Pay Express” and Visa’s “PAVD” (short for “PIN-authenticated Visa Debit”).

The signature debit network market is dominated by Visa and Mastercard, which are the signature network on 99% of debit cards. Of the two, Visa is the bigger dog, currently with a 70–75% share of all signature network transactions.

The PIN debit network market is more crowded. It includes not only Interlink and Pulse but also Maestro, STAR, NYCE, ACCEL, and Shazam, among others.

Federal law affects the debit network market.

The “Durbin Amendment” to the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act regulates the market in two ways relevant here.4

First, the Amendment forces issuers to enable at least two unaffiliated debit networks on all debit cards.

See 15 U.S.C. § 1693o- 2(b)(1)(A); 12 C.F.R. § 235.7(a)(1).

For Visa-branded debit cards (on which Visa’s signature network is enabled), this means issuers must enable at least one non-Visa PIN network on each card. Second, the Amendment gives merchants total autonomy to choose which debit network to route transactions over.

See 15 U.S.C. § 1693o-2(b)(1)(B); 12 C.F.R. § 235.7(b).5

4 See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376, § 1075 (2010); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693 et seq. See also generally NACS v. Bd. of Gov. of Fed. Reserve Sys., 746 F.3d 474, 479–81 (D.C. Cir. 2014); TCF Nat’l Bank v. Bernanke, 643 F.3d 1158, 1164–65 (8th Cir. 2011) (discussing Durbin Amendment).

5 Before the Durbin Amendment, Visa had “all-Visa” exclusive arrangements with issuers where the only networks enabled on a Visa debit card were Visa’s signature network and Interlink. By 2010, Visa processed around 45% of all PIN debit network transactions in the United States.

B. Visa’s Alleged Anti-Competitive Actions

In response to the Durbin Amendment, Visa made certain changes to its policies relevant here: PAVD, FANF, and volume-based agreements.

First, Visa instituted its PAVD program.

This requires issuers to enable Visa’s PAVD technology (i.e., Visa’s PINless system) on all Visa debit cards they issue. This guarantees that Visa can compete for PIN transactions on every Visa-branded card, even if the issuer has not enabled Interlink (Visa’s PIN network) on that card.

Second, Visa instituted the “Fixed Acquirer Network Fee” (“FANF”). Instead of charging merchants only a per-transaction fee, Visa began charging them6 a fixed monthly fee for using its debit networks.

Merchants must pay this up-front fee so long as they accept payment from any Visa product during the month.

Visa continued to charge per-transaction fees, but they were substantially reduced from previous levels.

Given the incentives created by this new pricing structure and Visa’s market dominance, Pulse claims the FANF has these effects:

(1) merchants can’t refuse to pay the fixed monthly fee because, realistically, they can’t stop accepting Visa cards,

and

(2) to recoup the fixed fee, merchants must route debit transactions through Visa’s networks, which charge lower per- transaction fees than do Visa’s rivals.

Third, Visa entered various volume-based agreements with issuers and merchants.

These agreements offer incentives to merchants to route a certain number of transactions each month over Visa’s networks. Similarly, Visa offers incentives to issuers—“rebates, discounts, and other incentives”—if certain numbers of transactions occur on Visa networks each month.

6 The up-front fee is actually charged to acquirers (merchants’ banks). But they pass the cost along to merchants.

C. Pulse’s Lawsuit

Pulse sued Visa in 2014, alleging the three policies just described violate federal and state antitrust statutes.7

The case was assigned to Judge Lynn Hughes of the Southern District of Texas.

There, the case languished for four years. In 2017, despite the fact that little discovery had been allowed, Visa moved for summary judgment on both the merits and antitrust standing.

About a year later, the district court held Pulse lacked antitrust standing and dismissed the case.

The court’s terse decision appeared to rest on three holdings.

First, the court concluded Pulse had suffered no injury-in-fact.

It reasoned that “[e]ven if Visa stopped using [the challenged strategies], Pulse would not necessarily win more business.”

It noted that “Mastercard, a major market participant second only to Visa, has adopted a pricing structure like Visa’s,” and that “[t]he rise of fixed fees would not stop if Visa were barred from having them.”

Second, the court held Pulse did not suffer an antitrust injury.

It reasoned that any injury inflicted by Visa’s policies was felt by merchants and issuers, not Pulse, and that Visa’s policies increased competition rather than harmed it.

Third, the court appeared to hold that Pulse was too remote a plaintiff.

In its view, because merchants, issuers, and acquirers were the parties potentially harmed by Visa’s conduct, “[t]hey are better and more directly positioned to challenge Visa if they think that this conduct violates the antitrust laws.”

Pulse timely appealed. Oral argument was first heard by a panel on October 9, 2019.

Following argument, one judge recused.

7 Specifically, Pulse brought claims of monopolization and attempted monopolization under § 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2; claims of restraint of trade, exclusive dealing, and illegal tying under § 1 of the Sherman Act; claims of tortious interference with prospective business relationships under Texas law; and claims under the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act.

The case was reassigned to a different panel, which—following delays caused by the pandemic and a hurricane—heard argument on January 5, 2022.

II. Antitrust Standing

On appeal, Pulse argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on Pulse’s lack of antitrust standing. We review summary judgments de novo. In re La. Crawfish Producers, 852 F.3d 456, 462 (5th Cir. 2017); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

The Clayton Act provides that “any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States.” 15 U.S.C. § 15(a). The Supreme Court has read this language to impose on antitrust plaintiffs threshold requirements that go beyond Article III standing.

See Atl. Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co. (ARCO), 495 U.S. 328, 334 (1990) (discussing precedents);

see also 2A Philip E. Areeda et al., Antitrust Law § 335 (4th ed. 2014) (“Antitrust standing . . . requires more than the constitutional minimum for the ‘case or controversy’ that brings jurisdiction to Article III courts.”).

Our precedents distill those requirements to three elements:

“1) injury-in-fact, an injury to the plaintiff proximately caused by the defendants’ conduct;

2) antitrust injury;

and

3) proper plaintiff status, which assures that other parties are not better situated to bring suit.”

Doctor’s Hosp. of Jefferson, Inc. v. Se. Med. All., Inc., 123 F.3d 301, 305 (5th Cir. 1997)

(citing McCormack v. NCAA, 845 F.3d 1338, 1341 (5th Cir. 1988));

see also Areeda § 335c, at 77.

The parties primarily debate the second element, antitrust injury, which describes injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants’ acts unlawful.

The injury should reflect the anticompetitive effect either of the violation or of anticompetitive acts made possible by the violation.

It should, in short, be “the type of loss that the claimed violations . . . would be likely to cause.”

Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 489 (1977) (ellipsis in original) (quoting Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Rsch., Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 125 (1969)).

Antitrust injury fleshes out the basic idea that “[t]he antitrust laws were enacted for the protection of competition, not competitors.”

ARCO, 495 U.S. at 338 (quotation marks omitted).

“At its most fundamental level, the antitrust injury requirement precludes recovery for losses resulting from competition, even though such competition was actually caused by conduct violating the antitrust laws.”

Areeda § 337a, at 102.

The premise is that marketplace conduct can simultaneously impair and enhance competition.

See ibid.

“Conduct in violation of the antitrust laws may have three effects, often interwoven:

In some respects the conduct may reduce competition, in other respects it may increase competition, and in still other respects effects may be neutral as to competition.”

ARCO, 495 U.S. at 343–44 (cleaned up).

So, we must isolate which aspect of the defendant’s allegedly illegal conduct adversely affected the plaintiff.

See id. at 342–44; Brunswick, 429 U.S. at 488.

Even if a defendant’s conduct violates the antitrust laws—and hence carries certain anticompetitive effects—a given plaintiff lacks antitrust standing unless its asserted injury reflects “an anticompetitive aspect of the defendant’s conduct.”

ARCO, 495 U.S. at 339 (emphasis omitted).

The district court found Pulse failed to show antitrust standing as to each of the challenged Visa policies—PAVD, FANF, and volume-based agreements.

We therefore address antitrust standing separately as to each policy.

In doing so, we assume arguendo that each policy violates the antitrust laws.

See Sanger Ins. Agency v. HUB Int’l, Ltd., 802 F.3d 732, 738 (5th Cir. 2015)

(“In analyzing this [antitrust] standing issue, we assume that [plaintiff’s] allegations . . . amount to an antitrust violation.”)

(citing Doctor’s Hosp., 123 F.3d at 306; 2A Areeda § 335f, at 91).

A. PAVD

Pulse contends it has antitrust standing to contest Visa’s PAVD program. Pulse alleges the program is an illegal tying arrangement that requires issuers to enable PAVD (and thereby Visa PIN transactions) on any Visa signature debit card.8

As a result, Pulse can no longer be the exclusive PIN network on Visa cards, and, as merchants choose to route PIN transactions via Visa, Pulse loses transaction volume and revenue.

We disagree with Pulse.

Before PAVD, Visa debit cards usually included one signature network and one PIN network.

Visa reserved the signature slot for itself and, in compliance with the Durbin Amendment, reserved the PIN slot for a nonaffiliate.

By obtaining exclusive placement on Visa debit cards as the sole PIN network, Pulse benefited from that effective exclusion of Visa from the PIN network market. But the PAVD program gives merchants a competing option.

Whereas Pulse previously was the only PIN network on Visa signature debit cards, PAVD now guarantees merchants the choice of routing PIN transactions via Pulse’s or Visa’s network. As merchants choose Visa’s over Pulse’s, Pulse loses PIN debit volume and revenue.

This brings us to the core of Pulse’s alleged injury: merchants, when given the option of Visa (through PAVD) or Pulse, are choosing Visa.

Pulse, understandably, would prefer that merchants be denied that choice.

Antitrust law does not assist Pulse in achieving that goal.

8 An illegal tying arrangement is one where the seller “exploit[s] . . . its control over the tying product to force the buyer into the purchase of a tied product that the buyer either did not want at all, or might have preferred to purchase elsewhere on different terms.”

Ill. Tool Works, Inc. v. Indep. Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28, 34–35 (2006) (internal citation omitted);

see also Areeda § 340c2, at 170

(“A dominant seller can exploit its market power directly by charging a price higher than the competitive price would be, or indirectly by forcing the buyer to buy a second product.

The seller may have reasons to prefer the second route, just as society may choose to condemn it as an unlawful tie, because it ‘introduces an alien factor’ into competition among rival producers of that second product.”).

Loss from competition itself—that is, loss in the form of customers’ choosing the competitor’s goods and services over the plaintiff’s—does not constitute antitrust injury, even if the defendant is violating antitrust laws in order to offer customers that choice.

See Brunswick, 429 U.S. at 487–88.

A plaintiff that sues a rival, complaining that the rival’s mere presence in the market causes it injury, seeks to gain not the opportunity to compete in the marketplace but only “the benefits of increased concentration.”

Id. at 488.

Such a plaintiff seeks not “to share shelf space with its competitor” but to have “that shelf space all to itself.”

NicSand, Inc. v. 3M Co., 507 F.3d 442, 454 (6th Cir. 2007) (en banc).

To be sure, the defendant might have violated the antitrust laws to place itself on the shelf next to the plaintiff, but it would be “inimical to the purposes of [the antitrust] laws” to recognize the plaintiff as being injured by the defendant’s presence on that shelf.

Brunswick, 429 U.S. at 488.

Pulse has therefore not shown antitrust injury here.9

Pulse counters that its loss of exclusive-dealing arrangements can constitute antitrust injury because exclusive dealing may be the only way for non-dominant firms, such as Pulse, to compete.

We disagree.

Pulse cites multiple cases to support its “loss-of-exclusivity” theory of injury.10

But those cases teach only the well-established proposition that exclusive-dealing arrangements are not per se antitrust violations.11

9 To be sure, Pulse has shown injury-in-fact. It claims Visa’s conduct caused it to lose PIN debit volume and revenue, and that Visa impeded its efforts to compete with its PINless products. These allegations of economic injury establish injury in fact. See, e.g., Energy Mgmt. Corp. v. City of Shreveport, 397 F.3d 297, 302 (5th Cir. 2005). But Pulse still lacks antitrust standing because of the lack of antitrust injury. ARCO, 495 U.S. at 343–44.

10 E.g., Tampa Elec. Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320, 334 (1961); FTC v. Motion Picture Advert. Serv. Co., 344 U.S. 392, 396 (1953); Hornsby Oil Co. v. Champion Spark Plug Co., 714 F.2d 1384, 1392 n.6 (5th Cir. 1983).

11 See Tampa Elec., 365 U.S. at 327 (“In practical application, even though a contract is found to be an exclusive-dealing arrangement, it does not violate [antitrust law] unless the court believes it probable that performance of the contract will foreclose competition in a substantial share of the line of commerce affected.”); Motion Picture Advert., 344 U.S. at 395-96 (recognizing that exclusive-dealing agreements are not per se

Whether exclusive-dealing arrangements are legal is a question separate from whether conduct that limits exclusivity, like Visa’s here, causes antitrust injury.

In this case, the answer is no.

Neither does the calculus change if we construe Pulse’s injury as the loss of the ability to negotiate for exclusivity instead of the loss of exclusivity itself.

True, Pulse is not exactly suing to deny Visa participation in the market for PIN transactions—even if Pulse’s suit were successful, Visa could still offer issuers incentives to enable PAVD on Visa debit cards, and Pulse presumably would offer competing incentives.

And it might be, as Pulse claims, that “many issuers would prefer not to enable PAVD” because the associated transaction fees, though lower for merchants, are higher for issuers.

Nevertheless, the injury to Pulse—as distinguished from any possible injury to issuers—is, ultimately, a loss of transaction volume for having to compete with Visa for merchant transactions.12

That kind of loss is not for antitrust laws to remedy.

Brunswick, 429 U.S. at 489.

Perhaps exclusive dealing is the only way Pulse can facilitate its expansion as a non-dominant firm. But antitrust law wasn’t made to help a smaller firm expand where competition limits its ability to do so on its own.13

antitrust violations); Hornsby, 714 F.2d at 1392 n.6 (“Exclusive dealing arrangements have not received the more stringent per se treatment.”).

12 This also suggests that parties other than Pulse are better situated to bring suit and that Pulse therefore lacks “proper plaintiff status.” See ARCO, 495 U.S. at 345–46 (noting that “a competitor will be injured and hence motivated to sue only when a vertical, maximum-price-fixing arrangement has a procompetitive impact on the market,” so the competitor’s suit “would not protect the rights of dealers and consumers under the antitrust laws”).

13 See Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colo., Inc., 479 U.S. 104, 116 (1986) (“[I]t is in the interest of competition to permit dominant firms to engage in vigorous competition  ”).

Congress may enact legislation—such as the Durbin Amendment— specifically to assist smaller firms, but it is not for the courts to retrofit antitrust law to further such goals.14

Even assuming Visa’s PAVD program is an illegal tie, Pulse’s injury—decreased PIN debit volume and revenue as merchants choose Visa over Pulse—results from increased competition and is therefore not antitrust injury.

B. FANF

Pulse also argues it has antitrust standing to contest FANF.

It alleges the FANF pricing structure has caused merchants to use its debit network less, decreasing Pulse’s revenue. Visa orchestrates this injury, Pulse claims, in two integrated steps.

First, Visa uses its market dominance to foist on merchants a high fixed fee they wouldn’t ordinarily accept.

Second, Visa then uses the revenues from that unavoidable upfront fee to artificially lower its per-transaction fees, which effectively forecloses rivals like Pulse from competing.

Visa responds that Pulse is really harmed only by the increased competition created by FANF (i.e., cheaper per-transaction fees), rather than some anticompetitive aspect of the pricing structure.

And injury from increased competition, Visa reminds us, is no concern of the antitrust laws.

We agree with Pulse.

Visa might have a point if Pulse were complaining only that Visa had slashed its per-transaction prices.

See, e.g., Felder’s Collision Parts, Inc. v. All Star Advert. Agency, Inc., 777 F.3d 756, 760–61 (5th Cir. 2015)

(“Low prices benefit consumers and are usually the product of the competitive marketplace that the antitrust laws are aimed at promoting.”

(citing Brooke Grp. Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 223 (1993))).

Pulse claims more than price competition is afoot, though.

After the Durbin Amendment loosened Visa’s grip on the debit network market, Visa began shedding merchants to Pulse and other networks because its pricing wasn’t

14 See Brunswick, 429 U.S. at 488 (“Congress is free, if it desires, to mandate damages awards for all dislocations caused by unlawful mergers despite the peculiar consequences of so doing.”).

competitive on a per-transaction basis. Instead of improving its product or competing on price, however, VISA began charging the FANF to merchants—and then using some of those revenues to reduce per- transaction fees.

This integrated fee structure, argues Pulse, forces merchants to pay a higher total cost (fixed plus per-transaction fees) than before, and yet Visa’s market share and profits have recovered.

This alleged scheme inflicts antitrust injury on Pulse. Under Pulse’s theory, it doesn’t lose customers to Visa in a fair fight over per-transaction fees.

Rather, Pulse loses customers because Visa abuses its dominance in the debit card market.

Merchants have no choice but to pay Visa’s high fixed monthly fee.

They recoup that expense by routing more transactions through Visa’s network, which charges lower per-transaction fees than competitors.

But Visa can achieve that only by leveraging the upfront fees to artificially deflate its per-transaction fees.

We must assume this pricing structure violates the antitrust laws.

See Sanger Ins. Agency, 802 F.3d at 738; Doctor’s Hosp., 123 F.3d at 306.

When we do, the link between Pulse’s injury and Visa’s alleged anticompetitive conduct becomes plain. Pulse is squeezed out of the market because Visa exploits its dominance to impose supra- competitive prices on merchants and simultaneously undercut competitors’ per-transaction fees. That is textbook antitrust injury.

See Andrx Pharms., Inc. v. Biovail Corp. Int’l, 256 F.3d 799, 816–17 (D.C. Cir. 2001)

(“Irrespective of consumer injury, an excluded competitor . . . suffers a distinct injury if it is prevented from selling its product.”).15

Visa’s counterarguments do not persuade us.

First, Visa argues that Pulse can’t show antitrust injury because “Pulse does not contend that Visa’s lowered per-transaction fees are

15 Pulse obviously suffers injury-in-fact from the FANF, as it contributed to Pulse’s losing volume and market share. These injuries are real harms that Visa allegedly intended to inflict. Allegations of economic harm are enough to establish injury in fact. See supra note 9. The district court plainly erred to the extent it concluded otherwise.

predatory” and “injuries that flow from non-predatory price cuts are not antitrust injuries.”

For this argument, Visa relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s ARCO decision.

See 495 U.S. at 340.

It quotes the Court’s statements that “[l]ow prices benefit consumers regardless of how those prices are set” and that “[w]hen prices are not predatory, any losses flowing from them cannot be said to stem from an anticompetitive aspect of the defendant’s conduct.”

Id. at 340–41.

Visa’s argument misperceives Pulse’s antitrust claim. Pulse isn’t complaining about low prices but about high prices—i.e., the supra- competitive overall prices Visa can charge merchants by exploiting its market dominance.

To be sure, part of Visa’s scheme is to use the upfront fixed fee to artificially deflate its per-transaction charges as to which it faces direct competition.

But, as Pulse points out, “that is just a manifestation of an integrated strategy of using market and monopoly power to charge supra- competitive prices.”

ARCO is inapposite.

There, an oil company allegedly conspired with its dealers to set maximum resale prices for gas.

A competitor of those dealers sued on the theory that this was a “vertical, maximum-price-fixing agreement,” at the time a per se Sherman Act violation.

495 U.S. at 331–33.16

The Supreme Court found the competitor lacked antitrust injury.

Id. at 336–38.

The anticompetitive effects of the vertical agreement—while harmful to the dealers bound by it and their consumers—were actually beneficial to the competitor, which could undercut those dealers on prices or services.17

The Court also rejected the competitor’s alternative argument that the agreement

16 That is no longer the case. See State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 7 (1997) (overruling Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U.S. 145 (1968), and holding that an alleged vertical maximum price-fixing agreement is subject to the rule of reason).

17 See id. at 336–37 (“Respondent was benefited rather than harmed if petitioner’s pricing policies restricted ARCO sales to a few large dealers or prevented petitioner’s dealers from offering services desired by consumers such as credit card sales.”).

injured it by setting prices too low.

As the Court explained, antitrust injury cannot be founded on a claim that firms have “lower[ed] prices but maintain[ed] them above predatory levels.”

Id. at 337.

In other words, harm from “nonpredatory price competition” does not arise from “an anticompetitive aspect of the defendant’s conduct.”

Id. at 338–39 (citing Brunswick, 429 U.S. at 487); see also Felder’s, 777 F.3d at 760–62.

This context shows why Visa’s reliance on ARCO is unavailing.

In that case, antitrust injury was absent because the plaintiff competitor was not harmed (and instead was benefited) by the anticompetitive aspects of the alleged antitrust violation.

Here, by contrast, Pulse is injured precisely by the anticompetitive aspects of Visa’s conduct, i.e., the integrated FANF structure that excludes Pulse from the market.

Moreover, ARCO discussed predatory pricing in the context of antitrust claims targeting the low prices set by a price-fixing agreement.

495 U.S. at 338–41.

Pulse, by contrast, isn’t challenging FANF because it imposes low or below-cost pricing.

Rather, it argues that FANF abuses Visa’s market power, specifically by imposing supra-competitive prices on merchants while manipulating prices in a way that excludes competitors from the market.

Second, Visa argues we should disregard FANF’s integrated pricing structure and instead treat the fixed fees and the per-transaction fees separately. Visa relies on the statement in ARCO that antitrust injury must be “attributable to an anti-competitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny.”

ARCO, 495 U.S. at 334 (emphasis added) (citing Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colo., Inc., 479 U.S. 104, 109–10 (1986)).

On this view, Pulse’s injury can be attributed only to the low per-transaction fees—not to the fixed fees—and hence only to the effects of price competition. We disagree.

The Supreme Court has time and again reminded us that analysis “rest[ing] on formalistic distinctions rather than actual market realities are generally disfavored in antitrust law.”

Am. Express, 138 S. Ct. at 2285 (citation omitted).18

So we cannot blind ourselves to the ample record evidence that Visa created the FANF to function as an integrated program.

As Pulse puts it, “Visa’s fixed fees and per-transaction fees are two components of a single integrated price structure that raises overall prices for merchants while artificially deflating Visa’s per-transaction charges, where Visa faces direct competition from Pulse and others.”

Pulse’s claimed injury stems directly from the combined effect of those two components—the fixed fee allowing Visa to subsidize its per-transaction fee, imposing supra- competitive overall costs on merchants while excluding competitors from the market. To separate those components when assessing antitrust injury, as Visa wants us to do, would falsify the “actual market realities” at play here.

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 466 (1992).

We won’t do that.

Third, Visa claims Pulse is not a proper plaintiff to challenge FANF because merchants and issuers pay the FANF, not Pulse.

We again disagree.

Antitrust standing requires “proper plaintiff status, which assures that other parties are not better situated to bring suit.”

Doctor’s Hosp., 123 F.3d at 305.

This inquiry focuses on proximate causation.19

Our circuit considers factors such as

(1) “whether the plaintiff’s injuries or their causal link to the defendant are speculative”;

(2) “whether other parties have been more directly harmed”;

and

(3) “whether allowing this plaintiff to sue would risk multiple lawsuits, duplicative recoveries, or complex damage

18 See also NCAA v. Alston, 141 S. Ct. 2141, 2158 (2021)

(“Whether an antitrust violation exists necessarily depends on a careful analysis of market realities.” (citations omitted)); Doctor’s Hosp., 123 F.3d at 305 (explaining “antitrust injury for standing purposes should be viewed from the perspective of the plaintiff’s position in the marketplace”).

19 See, e.g., Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 126 (2014)

(citing Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 532–33 (1983)).

apportionment.” McCormack, 845 F.2d at 1341; see also Norris v. Hearst Trust, 500 F.3d 454, 465 (5th Cir. 2007).

Pulse is a proper plaintiff to challenge FANF.

Pulse claims FANF squeezes it out of the debit network market, reducing Pulse’s transaction volume and market share.

Based on the record, a reasonable jury could find a non-speculative causal link between these claimed injuries and FANF.

See McCormack, 845 F.2d at 1341.20

Moreover, Pulse’s claimed harm—being driven from the market by FANF’s abusive structure—is distinct from any increased costs FANF may visit on merchants or issuers.

Those harms are no more direct than the ones Pulse claims as an excluded competitor.

See ibid.21

Finally, no merchant or issuer could recover for Pulse’s competitive injuries, so there is no chance of duplicative recoveries.

Ibid.22

20 Conceding Pulse has lost volume and market share, Visa attributes those losses to business failures unrelated to Visa’s conduct. Maybe, maybe not. But it is Visa which moved for summary judgment, and so Pulse gets the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the record. La. Crawfish Producers, 852 F.3d at 462. A reasonable jury could conclude from the record that Visa’s policies deprived Pulse of the opportunity to compete for business from at least one major merchant.

21 See also Norris, 500 F.3d at 467 (holding plaintiffs lacked standing because they were “neither consumers nor competitors in the market attempted to be constrained”); TCA Bldg. Co. v. Nw. Res. Co., 861 F. Supp. 1366, 1380 (S.D. Tex. 1994) (“As a competitor for sales . . . in a market which the Defendants have allegedly monopolized, which has allegedly lost sales due to the Defendants’ allegedly unlawful agreement to exclude competitors, no party is in a better position to vindicate the purposes of the antitrust laws than [the plaintiff].”).

22 That is, no merchant or issuer could recover from Visa for Pulse’s lost profits and market share. See, e.g., Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As v. Heeremac V.O.F., 241 F.3d 420, 438 (5th Cir. 2001) (Jones, J., dissenting) (stating that had the majority reached the issue of antitrust standing, the plaintiff was a proper plaintiff because “[t]here is no suggestion that any unnamed party can seek to recover for the same damages [the plaintiff] suffered” (emphasis added)); see also Andrx Pharm., 256 F.3d at 817 (finding a competitor had antitrust standing because his “alleged injury [was] not measured by or derived from” the injury suffered by “consumer plaintiffs”).

C. Volume-Based Agreements

Finally, Pulse argues it suffers antitrust injury from Visa’s volume- based routing agreements with merchants and issuers.

These agreements, Pulse alleges, are “designed to lock up the market and thereby protect Visa’s lucrative signature debit business from competition from Pulse Pay Express and other debit networks’ PINless products.”

Pulse claims the agreements thus constitute “exclusive-dealing or quasi-exclusive-dealing agreements,” which Visa has employed to suppress competition and reduce Pulse’s market share in PINless transactions.

See, e.g., ZF Meritor, LLC v. Eaton Corp., 696 F.3d 254, 270 (3d Cir. 2012).23

Pulse argues the district court erred in ruling it lacks antitrust standing to challenge the volume-based agreements.

We agree.

As it did with respect to FANF, Visa argues that the agreements merely amount to “non-predatory price competition.”

See ARCO, 495 U.S. at 340–41.

That’s a merits question, however.

At this stage we must assume that Pulse will prove the agreements violate the antitrust laws as anti- competitive exclusive-dealing arrangements.

See Doctor’s Hosp., 123 F.3d at 306.

Based on that assumption, Pulse has shown antitrust injury.

Similar to its claims against FANF, Pulse isn’t claiming that it’s losing a fair price war against Visa.

Instead, it’s claiming that Visa has used its market dominance to strong-arm merchants into avoiding Pulse Pay Express.

Visa also makes the factual argument that its agreements with merchants and issuers are “short term, freely terminable, contain[ ] no penalties for non-performance, and impose[] no obligations or commitments

23 As the Third Circuit has explained, “[a]n exclusive dealing arrangement is an agreement in which a buyer agrees to purchase certain goods or services only from a particular seller for a certain period of time.” ZF Meritor, 696 F.3d at 270. Such arrangements, while not always anti-competitive, “may be used by a monopolist to strengthen its position, which may ultimately harm competition.” Ibid. (citing, inter alia, Tampa Elec., 365 U.S. at 327–29; 11 Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 1800a, at 3 (3d ed. 2011)).

on . . . merchants.”

But the record reveals fact disputes on that point.

For instance, Pulse deposed an officer from Kroger, a major merchant, who stated that Visa fined Kroger repeatedly for using competing PIN debit networks instead of Visa’s signature debit network and threatened to revoke Kroger’s ability to accept any Visa debit card.

So, what to make of Visa’s agreements with merchants and issuers is a fact question for a jury, not a summary judgment issue for a court.

And a reasonable jury could find that some of Visa’s volume-based agreements amount to exclusive-dealing contracts designed to squeeze Pulse out of the PINless transaction market.24

III. Reassignment on Remand

Pulse asks us to reassign the case to a different judge on remand.

Our supervisory authority permits us to reassign cases, see 28 U.S.C. § 2106; Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554 (1994), but this should be done “infrequently and with great reluctance,”

Miller v. Sam Houston State Univ., 986 F.3d 880, 892 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Winters, 174 F.3d 478, 487 (5th Cir. 1999));

see also Johnson v. Sawyer, 120 F.3d 1307, 1333 (5th Cir. 1997) (reassignment is “extraordinary” and “rarely invoked”) (citation omitted).

To assess whether to reassign, we consider three factors:

(1) whether the original judge would reasonably be expected upon remand to have substantial difficulty in putting out of his mind or her mind previously-expressed views or findings determined to be erroneous or based on evidence that must be rejected,

(2) whether reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice,

and

(3) whether reassignment would entail waste and duplication out of proportion to any gain in preserving the appearance of fairness.

24 That also shows why Pulse is injured-in-fact by the agreements and why it’s a proper plaintiff to challenge them. Though the agreements are with merchants and issuers (and so may harm them in some way), Pulse suffers distinct and direct harm because the agreements are allegedly designed to hurt Pulse’s market share. See also 9 AREEDA § 1800, at 10 (“If the exclusive arrangement is anticompetitive at all, it is because the arrangement forecloses rivals from adequate sales outlets. Thus, the condition that makes tying or exclusive dealing anticompetitive in the first place is that customers lack sufficient options to purchase . . . elsewhere.”).

Miller, 986 F.3d at 892–93 (citation omitted).25

Applying these factors, we conclude reassignment is warranted.

Pulse’s overarching contention is that the district judge had pre-judged the case against Pulse from the outset.

This is a serious accusation, but unfortunately there is record support for it.

For example, at an initial conference in 2015, the judge repeatedly insisted that the challenged Visa policies did not harm competition and that merchants “were not forced to pay” the FANF.

These are some of the key disputed issues underlying Pulse’s claims.

Pulse also points out that the district judge candidly revealed his disdain for antitrust law and antitrust plaintiffs.

For instance, the judge remarked that “there are more bad antitrust cases than any other single category,” theorized that “[t]he only real monopolies are ones supported by the government,” and suggested that the Standard Oil Company wasn’t a real monopoly.

Viewed in isolation, any one of these admittedly gratuitous comments might be harmless.

Taken together, however, they raise concerns that the judge harbored ingrained skepticism about Pulse’s claims from the jump.

What happened over the ensuing four years of proceedings only sharpens those concerns.

Most significantly, the district judge repeatedly stymied Pulse’s legitimate requests to engage in critical discovery.

As Pulse points out,

“four years in[to the litigation], Pulse ha[d] not been allowed to take any party discovery from Visa—no document requests, no interrogatories, no depositions, nothing.”

25 Our cases also articulate a second, simpler test: a case should be reassigned “when the facts might reasonably cause an objective observer to question the judge’s impartiality.”

In re DaimlerChrysler Corp., 294 F.3d 697, 701 (5th Cir. 2002) (cleaned up); see also Miller, 986 F.3d at 893 (characterizing second test as “more lenient”).

But the two tests are “redundan[t]” because “the second factor of the first test is virtually identical to the single question the simpler test asks.”

Willey v. Harris Cty. Dist. Att’y, 27 F.4th 1125, 1137 (5th Cir. 2022)

(quoting United States v. Khan, 997 F.3d 242, 249 n.4 (5th Cir. 2021)).

So, we needn’t apply the second test.

At least eight of Pulse’s requests for party and non-party discovery were denied—including discovery directed to the core issue of whether Visa was using FANF to subsidize its per- transaction fees.26

The judge also denied Pulse’s request to participate in discovery in a related MDL involving Visa, even after Visa sought substantial third-party discovery from Pulse in that MDL.

Indeed, instead of allowing Pulse to engage in discovery, the judge required Pulse to provide information to Visa.27

The sum total of this approach left Pulse, despite years of litigation, without any discovery on aspects of Visa’s policies central to its case.

Finally, the district court’s substantive rulings lend further support to Pulse’s arguments for reassignment.

For instance, after Visa moved to dismiss Pulse’s case in 2015, the district court took nine months to issue a one-sentence order denying the motion.

The order stated in full:

“While the complaint is not compellingly lucid, Pulse Network, LLC, has alleged sufficient facts that probably adequately state a claim for relief.”

Two years later—despite the lack of meaningful discovery—Visa was allowed to move for summary judgment on both the merits and antitrust standing.

The court then waited another ten months to resolve the motion.

Its order consisted in—to borrow from a previous case involving the same judge that was also reassigned on remand—“a [seven]-page opinion with few citations to either

26 In one illustrative exchange, Pulse explained it needed discovery because “we need to know exactly how Visa is implementing [the strategies] we’re complaining about.”

The court denied the request—first telling Pulse that it “has no evidence” that Visa uses the FANF to finance discounts on per-transaction fees, and then refusing to allow Pulse the chance to obtain that evidence:

“No. You’re not going to get discovery to find out that

– You only suspect that it’s below cost.”

27 The district court suggested that Pulse should be required to produce unilateral discovery because it is the plaintiff:

“since [Pulse] brought the lawsuit, it’s going to have to show Visa what it’s done before I make them reveal their records.

They started it.

They’re going to have to take the lead in furnishing the data they have that reflects the injury they say they inflicted.”

record evidence or relevant legal authority . . . consist[ing] almost entirely of conclusory statements.”

United States ex rel. Little v. Shell Expl. & Prod. Co., 602 F. App’x 959, 975 (5th Cir. 2015) (unpublished).

In light of all this, our three-factor test counsels reassignment.

First, we conclude that “the [district] judge would likely have substantial difficulty putting out of his mind his previously expressed views” concerning antitrust law in general and Pulse’s claims in particular.

Khan, 997 F.3d at 249.

Second, we find that “the appearance of justice has been compromised” by the judge’s remarks and by the course of proceedings discussed above.

Ibid.;

see also United States v. Varner, 948 F.3d 250, 256 (5th Cir. 2020)

(“Federal judges should always seek to promote confidence that they will dispense evenhanded justice.”

(citing Canon 2(A), Code of Conduct for United States Judges)).

While the third factor cautions against reassignment for fear of “waste and duplication out of proportion to any gain in preserving the appearance of fairness,” Johnson, 120 F.3d at 1333 (citation omitted), that concern lacks traction here.

As discussed, little discovery was allowed over four years of litigation and the case has only now proceeded past standing.

Reassignment won’t make the new judge start over because even after so much time the case has barely started.28

28 We have reassigned this district judge’s cases before.

See, e.g., Khan, 997 F.3d at 249

(reassignment where same judge sentenced defendant, was reversed, and on remand “declined to reconsider the sentence in any respect, showing that he [wa]s adamant against further consideration of the substance of the record”);

Miller, 986 F.3d at 892–93

(prejudicial comments and peremptory rulings justified reassignment);

United States v. Swenson, 894 F.3d 677, 683, 685 (5th Cir. 2018)

(reassignment warranted where judge did not explain discovery rulings and attributed counsel’s mistakes to her sex);

Shell, 602 F. App’x at 975

(reassignment where judge ignored our instructions after an appeal, resulting in a second appeal);

Latiolais v. Cravins, 574 F. App’x 429, 437 (5th Cir. 2014)

(concluding judge’s comments demonstrated it would be exceedingly difficult for him to put aside the views he expressed about the evidence).

IV. Conclusion

We REVERSE the summary judgment in part, REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, and DIRECT the Chief Judge of the Southern District of Texas to assign the case to a different district judge.

Former Judge and Lawyer J. Michael Luttig’s ‘Constitutional Crisis’ is a Diversion

The truth is the People do not trust the U.S. Government, full of lawyers and judges who ‘run the country’ and assert they are above the law.

Who Nominates Federal Judges and Prosecutors in Texas?

Senator Ted Cruz and Senator John Cornyn accept applications for judges and prosecutors in Texas – so good luck removing them from office.

Buying Federal Judgeships in Texas is Commonplace if You Know Ted Cruz n’ John Cornyn

Just ask United States District Judge Charles Eskridge of the Southern District, Houston Division – who sat on the Judicial Selection Panel.

Case Selection Page

Case Number
Title
Opening Date Last Docket
Entry
Originating Case Number
Origin
18-20669
Pulse Network v. Visa
10/01/2018 04/05/2022
13:39:46
0541-4 : 4:14-CV-3391
Southern District of Texas, Houston
Note:
* Click on Case No. to get Case Summary
* Click on Short Title to get Case Query
* Click on Originating Case No. to get Case Summary for Originating Case
General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 18-20669 Docketed: 10/01/2018
Termed: 04/05/2022
Nature of Suit: 3410 Antitrust
Pulse Network v. Visa
Appeal From: Southern District of Texas, Houston
Fee Status: Fee Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) Private Civil Federal
     2) Private
     3)
Originating Court Information:
     District: 0541-4 : 4:14-CV-3391
     Court Reporter: Heather Alcaraz, Court Reporter
     Court Reporter: Mayra Malone, Court Reporter
     Court Reporter: Katherine Lee Metzger, Court Reporter
     Court Reporter: Johnny Sanchez, Court Reporter
     Court Reporter: Bruce Slavin, Court Reporter
     Originating Judge: Lynn N. Hughes, U.S. District Judge
     Date Filed: 11/25/2014
     Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec’d COA:
     09/28/2018      09/28/2018

08/16/2021 Open Document REDACTED APPELLEE’S SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF FILED Date of service: 08/16/2021 # of Copies Provided: 0. [18-20669] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: REDACTED SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF FILED by Visa, Incorporated Date of service: 08/16/2021 [18-20669] (Allyson Newton Ho ) [Entered: 08/16/2021 08:48 PM]
08/16/2021 Open Restricted Document APPELLANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF FILED by Pulse Network, L.L.C.
Date of service: 08/16/2021 # of Copies Provided: 0. [18-20669] (RLL) [Entered: 08/17/2021 03:08 PM]
08/16/2021 Open Restricted Document APPELLEE’S SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF FILED by Visa, Incorporated
Date of service: 08/16/2021 # of Copies Provided: 0. [18-20669] (RLL) [Entered: 08/17/2021 03:10 PM]
08/27/2021 Open Document Oral argument moved from Monday, August 30, 2021 to Thursday, September 23, 2021. [18-20669] (GAM) [Entered: 08/27/2021 11:56 AM]
08/27/2021 Open Document UNOPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. to continue oral argument [9655270-2]. Date of service: 08/27/2021 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Andrews, Bailey, Citron, Coffin, Greenstein; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Ho, Hubbard, Kaplan, Keker, Rubin, Spencer, Tulumello [18-20669] (Paul D. Clement ) [Entered: 08/27/2021 04:41 PM]
09/07/2021 Open Document COURT ORDER GRANTING unnopposed motion to continue oral argument filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. By further order, the court will set an alternative date. [9655270-2] [18-20669] (DLM) [Entered: 09/07/2021 08:19 AM]
09/09/2021 Open Document Oral argument moved from September 23, 2021 to Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 12:30 P.M. in New Orleans in the En Banc Courtroom. [18-20669] (PFT) [Entered: 09/09/2021 03:29 PM]
01/05/2022 ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD before Judges Smith, Willett, Duncan. Arguing Person Information Updated for: Paul D. Clement arguing for Appellant L.L.C. Pulse Network; Arguing Person Information Updated for: Allyson Newton Ho arguing for Appellee Incorporated Visa [18-20669] (SME) [Entered: 01/05/2022 12:06 PM]
04/05/2022 Open Document PUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [18-20669 Reversed in Part and Remanded ] Judge: JES , Judge: DRW , Judge: SKD. Mandate issue date is 04/27/2022 [18-20669] (NFD) [Entered: 04/05/2022 01:30 PM]
04/05/2022 Open Document JUDGMENT ENTERED AND FILED. Costs Taxed Against: Each Party Bear Its Own Costs On Appeal. [18-20669] (NFD) [Entered: 04/05/2022 01:39 PM]
General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 18-20669 Docketed: 10/01/2018
Termed: 04/05/2022
Nature of Suit: 3410 Antitrust
Pulse Network v. Visa
Appeal From: Southern District of Texas, Houston
Fee Status: Fee Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) Private Civil Federal
     2) Private
     3)
Originating Court Information:
     District: 0541-4 : 4:14-CV-3391
     Court Reporter: Heather Alcaraz, Court Reporter
     Court Reporter: Mayra Malone, Court Reporter
     Court Reporter: Katherine Lee Metzger, Court Reporter
     Court Reporter: Johnny Sanchez, Court Reporter
     Court Reporter: Bruce Slavin, Court Reporter
     Originating Judge: Lynn N. Hughes, U.S. District Judge
     Date Filed: 11/25/2014
     Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec’d COA:
     09/28/2018      09/28/2018
Prior Cases:
     None
Current Cases:
     None
Panel Assignment:
Panel: JES     DRW     SKD
Date of Hearing: 01/05/2022      Date of Decision: 04/05/2022      Date Completed: 04/05/2022

 

Pulse Network, L.L.C.
Plaintiff – Appellant
Paul D. Clement
Direct: 202-879-5000
Email: paul.clement@kirkland.com
Fax: 202-389-5200
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Kirkland & Ellis, L.L.P.
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004David J. Beck, Esq.
Direct: 713-951-3700
Email: dbeck@beckredden.com
Fax: 713-951-3720
[COR NTC Retained]
Beck Redden, L.L.P.
Suite 4500
1221 McKinney Street
1 Houston Center
Houston, TX 77010Geoff A. Gannaway, Esq.
Direct: 713-951-3700
Email: ggannaway@beckredden.com
Fax: 713-951-3720
[COR NTC Retained]
Beck Redden, L.L.P.
Suite 4500
1221 McKinney Street
1 Houston Center
Houston, TX 77010Erin Murphy
Direct: 202-879-5000
Email: erin.murphy@kirkland.com
Fax: 202-389-5200
[COR NTC Retained]
Kirkland & Ellis, L.L.P.
Suite 1200
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004Russell S. Post
Direct: 713-951-6292
Email: rpost@beckredden.com
Fax: 713-951-3720
[COR NTC Retained]
Beck Redden, L.L.P.
Suite 4500
1221 McKinney Street
1 Houston Center
Houston, TX 77010
v.
Visa, Incorporated
Defendant – Appellee
Allyson Newton Ho
Direct: 214-698-3100
Email: aho@gibsondunn.com
Fax: 214-571-2900
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, L.L.P.
Suite 2100
2001 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75201Bradley G. Hubbard
Direct: 214-698-3100
Email: bhubbard@gibsondunn.com
[COR NTC Retained]
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, L.L.P.
Suite 2100
2001 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75201Lee Landa Kaplan
Direct: 713-221-2300
Email: lkaplan@skv.com
Fax: 713-221-2320
[COR NTC Retained]
Smyser Kaplan & Veselka, L.L.P.
Suite 2300
717 Texas Avenue
Houston, TX 77002John Watkins Keker, Esq.
Direct: 415-391-5400
Email: jkeker@kvn.com
Fax: 415-397-7188
[COR NTC Retained]
Keker, Van Nest & Peters, L.L.P.
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1890Michael Adam Rubin
Direct: 202-942-6171
Email: michael.rubin@arnoldporter.com
[COR NTC Retained]
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, L.L.P.
601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001-3743Jacob T. Spencer
Direct: 202-887-3792
Email: jspencer@gibsondunn.com
[COR NTC Retained]
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, L.L.P.
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5306Andrew Tulumello, Senior Litigation Attorney
Direct: 202-682-7000
Email: drew.tulumello@weil.com
[COR NTC Retained]
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, L.L.P.
Suite 600
2001 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
——————————
Retail Litigation Center, Incorporated
Amicus Curiae
Eric Franklin Citron
Direct: 202-362-0636
Email: ecitron@goldsteinrussell.com
Fax: 866-574-2033
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Goldstein & Russell, P.C.
Suite 850
7475 Wisconsin Avenue
Bethesda, MD 20814
Merchant Advisory Group
Amicus Curiae
Shannen Wayne Coffin
Direct: 202-429-6255
Email: scoffin@steptoe.com
Fax: 202-429-3902
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Steptoe & Johnson, L.L.P.
1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036Linda C. Bailey
Direct: 202-429-3907
Email: lbailey@steptoe.com
[COR NTC Retained]
Steptoe & Johnson, L.L.P.
1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
National Association of Convenience Stores
Amicus Curiae
Shannen Wayne Coffin
Direct: 202-429-6255
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Linda C. Bailey
Direct: 202-429-3907
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)
National Retail Federation
Amicus Curiae
Shannen Wayne Coffin
Direct: 202-429-6255
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Linda C. Bailey
Direct: 202-429-3907
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)
Food Marketing Institute
Amicus Curiae
Shannen Wayne Coffin
Direct: 202-429-6255
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Linda C. Bailey
Direct: 202-429-3907
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)
SHAZAM, Incorporated
Amicus Curiae
Seth David Greenstein
Direct: 202-204-3514
Email: sgreenstein@constantinecannon.com
Fax: 202-204-3501
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Constantine Cannon, L.L.P.
Suite 1300 N
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-2579
Richard Epstein
Amicus Curiae
Cory L. Andrews
Direct: 202-588-0302
Email: candrews@wlf.org
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Washington Legal Foundation
2009 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-0000
Geoffrey A. Manne
Amicus Curiae
Cory L. Andrews
Direct: 202-588-0302
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
Washington Legal Foundation
Amicus Curiae
Cory L. Andrews
Direct: 202-588-0302
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)

Pulse Network, L.L.C.,

Plaintiff – Appellant

v.

Visa, Incorporated,

Defendant – Appellee

10/01/2018  Open Document
3 pg, 52.68 KB
PRIVATE CIVIL FEDERAL CASE docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. [18-20669] (AS) [Entered: 10/01/2018 11:47 AM]
10/09/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 138.47 KB
APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. David J. Beck, Esq. for Pulse Network, L.L.C. for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [18-20669] (David J. Beck ) [Entered: 10/09/2018 12:48 PM]
10/09/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 138.22 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [18-20669] (Russell S. Post ) [Entered: 10/09/2018 12:51 PM]
10/09/2018  Open Document
4 pg, 157.48 KB
INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete, Action: Case OK to Process. [8892765-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied. Transcript order due on 10/24/2018 for Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. [18-20669] (CAS) [Entered: 10/09/2018 02:57 PM]
10/09/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 130.37 KB
ATTORNEY TRANSCRIPT ORDER form filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C.for the Court to process. Date of service: 10/09/2018 via email – Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Pratt; Attorney for Appellees: Bhansali, Kaplan, Keker; US mail – Attorney for Appellants: Becker, Selendy; Attorney for Appellee: Merley. [18-20669] (David J. Beck ) [Entered: 10/09/2018 03:35 PM]
10/09/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 129.99 KB
ATTORNEY TRANSCRIPT ORDER form filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C.for the Court to process. Date of service: 10/09/2018 via email – Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Pratt; Attorney for Appellees: Bhansali, Kaplan, Keker; US mail – Attorney for Appellants: Becker, Selendy; Attorney for Appellee: Merley. [18-20669] (David J. Beck ) [Entered: 10/09/2018 03:37 PM]
10/09/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 130.46 KB
ATTORNEY TRANSCRIPT ORDER form filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C.for the Court to process. Date of service: 10/09/2018 via email – Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Pratt; Attorney for Appellees: Bhansali, Kaplan, Keker; US mail – Attorney for Appellants: Becker, Selendy; Attorney for Appellee: Merley. [18-20669] (David J. Beck ) [Entered: 10/09/2018 03:38 PM]
10/09/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 130.38 KB
ATTORNEY TRANSCRIPT ORDER form filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C.for the Court to process. Date of service: 10/09/2018 via email – Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Pratt; Attorney for Appellees: Bhansali, Kaplan, Keker; US mail – Attorney for Appellants: Becker, Selendy; Attorney for Appellee: Merley. [18-20669] (David J. Beck ) [Entered: 10/09/2018 03:39 PM]
10/09/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 130.5 KB
ATTORNEY TRANSCRIPT ORDER form filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C.for the Court to process. Date of service: 10/09/2018 via email – Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Pratt; Attorney for Appellees: Bhansali, Kaplan, Keker; US mail – Attorney for Appellants: Becker, Selendy; Attorney for Appellee: Merley. [18-20669] (David J. Beck ) [Entered: 10/09/2018 03:40 PM]
10/09/2018  Open Document
2 pg, 832.16 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Court Reporter Acknowledgment for Heather Alcaraz received from Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. because incorrect filing event used. [18-20669] (LCA) [Entered: 10/10/2018 03:30 PM]
10/10/2018 TRANSCRIPT ORDER received from Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C.. DETAILS: Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Heather Alcaraz, Proceeding Type and Date: Hearing 08/10/2016 ; Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Mayra Malone, Proceeding Type and Date: Pre-Trial Conference 07/11/2017 ; Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Katherine Lee Metzger, Proceeding Type and Date: Motion Hearing 06/16/2015 , Discovery Hearing 05/05/2016 ; Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Johnny Sanchez, Proceeding Type and Date: Hearing 05/23/2018 ; Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Bruce Slavin, Proceeding Type and Date: Initial Appearance 02/09/2015 , Discovery Hearing 02/09/2016 , Pre-Trial Conference 02/24/2017. Transcript Order ddl satisfied. Ct. Reporter Acknowledgment due on 10/22/2018 for Heather Alcaraz, Court Reporter, Mayra Malone, Court Reporter, Katherine Metzger, Court Reporter, Johnny Sanchez, Court Reporter and Bruce Slavin, Court Reporter. Electronic Filing Processed: [8892892-2], [8892890-2], [8892888-2], [8892885-2], [8892876-2] [18-20669] (LCA) [Entered: 10/10/2018 11:32 AM]
10/10/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 137.23 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [18-20669] (Matthew Rowen ) [Entered: 10/10/2018 12:59 PM]
10/10/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 137.88 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [18-20669] (Erin Murphy ) [Entered: 10/10/2018 01:01 PM]
10/10/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 137.39 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [18-20669] (Michael Dallas Lieberman ) [Entered: 10/10/2018 01:17 PM]
10/10/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 137.23 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [18-20669] (Paul D. Clement ) [Entered: 10/10/2018 01:19 PM]
10/10/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 692.16 KB
NOTICE RECEIVED that the transcript ordered by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. is complete and has been filed in the District Court. [18-20669] (Heather Alcaraz ) [Entered: 10/10/2018 02:32 PM]
10/10/2018 TRANSCRIPT FILED IN DISTRICT COURT Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Heather Alcaraz, Dt. Filed in Dist. Ct: 08/23/2016 Ct. Reporter Acknowledgment deadline canceled [18-20669] (LCA) [Entered: 10/10/2018 03:14 PM]
10/10/2018 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney David J. Beck for Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. in 18-20669 [18-20669] (CAS) [Entered: 10/10/2018 03:37 PM]
10/10/2018  Open Document
2 pg, 451.83 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Court Reporter Acknowledgment received from Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. because unnecessary as transcript is already on file in district court [18-20669] (LCA) [Entered: 10/11/2018 11:56 AM]
10/11/2018 TRANSCRIPT FILED IN DISTRICT COURT Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Mayra Malone, Dt. Filed in Dist. Ct: 07/20/2017 ; Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Katherine Lee Metzger, Dt. Filed in Dist. Ct: 06/25/2015 ; Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Johnny Sanchez, Dt. Filed in Dist. Ct: 07/02/2018 ; Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Bruce Slavin, Dt. Filed in Dist. Ct: 02/12/2015 Ct. Reporter Acknowledgment deadline canceled [18-20669] (LCA) [Entered: 10/11/2018 09:33 AM]
10/11/2018 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED FROM DISTRICT COURT for 4:14-CV-3391. Electronic ROA due on 10/26/2018. [18-20669] (LCA) [Entered: 10/11/2018 09:33 AM]
10/11/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 137.22 KB
Attorney Paul D. Clement is advised to resubmit an appearance form. Reason: The submitted appearance form does not match the registered attorney. [18-20669] (BPL) [Entered: 10/11/2018 09:42 AM]
10/11/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 140.45 KB
Attorney Erin Murphy is advised to resubmit an appearance form. Reason: No signature on appearance form. [18-20669] (BPL) [Entered: 10/11/2018 09:46 AM]
10/11/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 140.45 KB
Attorney Michael Dallas Lieberman is advised to resubmit an appearance form. Reason: No signature on appearance form. [18-20669] (BPL) [Entered: 10/11/2018 09:53 AM]
10/11/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 181.54 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [18-20669] (Erin Murphy ) [Entered: 10/11/2018 10:35 AM]
10/11/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 181.08 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [18-20669] (Michael Dallas Lieberman ) [Entered: 10/11/2018 10:37 AM]
10/11/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 132.36 KB
APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. Lee Landa Kaplan for Visa, Incorporated for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [18-20669] (Lee Landa Kaplan ) [Entered: 10/11/2018 11:03 AM]
10/11/2018 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Paul D. Clement, Russell S. Post for party(s) Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C., in case 18-20669 [18-20669] (ABT) [Entered: 10/11/2018 11:08 AM]
10/12/2018 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Erin Murphy, Michael Dallas Lieberman for party(s) Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C., in case 18-20669, by Attorney Lee Landa Kaplan for Appellee Visa, Incorporated in 18-20669 [18-20669] (ABT) [Entered: 10/12/2018 10:18 AM]
10/12/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 139.46 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [18-20669] (Geoff A. Gannaway ) [Entered: 10/12/2018 12:00 PM]
10/16/2018 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Geoff A. Gannaway for party(s) Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C., in case 18-20669 [18-20669] (AGL) [Entered: 10/16/2018 08:59 AM]
10/16/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 169.66 KB
APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. John Watkins Keker, Esq. for Visa, Incorporated for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [18-20669] (John Watkins Keker ) [Entered: 10/16/2018 01:29 PM]
10/17/2018 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney John Watkins Keker for Appellee Visa, Incorporated in 18-20669 [18-20669] (CAS) [Entered: 10/17/2018 01:23 PM]
10/17/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 312.26 KB
NOTICE RECEIVED that the transcript ordered by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. is complete and has been filed in the District Court. [18-20669] (Mayra Malone ) [Entered: 10/17/2018 03:20 PM]
10/23/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 71.89 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [18-20669] (Michael Adam Rubin ) [Entered: 10/23/2018 01:38 PM]
10/23/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 69.01 KB
APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. Mark R. Merley for Visa, Incorporated for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [18-20669] (Mark R. Merley ) [Entered: 10/23/2018 01:41 PM]
10/24/2018 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL FILED. Exhibits on File in District Court? No. Electronic ROA deadline satisfied. [18-20669] (DDL) [Entered: 10/24/2018 09:12 AM]
10/24/2018  Open Document
5 pg, 166.9 KB
BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet’s Brief Due on 12/03/2018 for Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C.. [18-20669] (DDL) [Entered: 10/24/2018 09:15 AM]
10/24/2018 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Michael Adam Rubin for party(s) Appellee Visa, Incorporated, in case 18-20669 [18-20669] (KGL) [Entered: 10/24/2018 11:41 AM]
10/24/2018 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Mark R. Merley for Appellee Visa, Incorporated in 18-20669 [18-20669] (KGL) [Entered: 10/24/2018 11:44 AM]
11/05/2018  Open Document
6 pg, 87.67 KB
UNOPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. to extend time to file brief as appellant until 01/17/2019 [8913222-2]. Date of service: 11/05/2018 via email – Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Lieberman, Murphy, Post, Pratt; Attorney for Appellees: Bhansali, Kaplan, Keker, Merley, Rubin [18-20669] (Paul D. Clement ) [Entered: 11/05/2018 12:36 PM]
11/06/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 82.62 KB
CLERK ORDER granting Motion to extend time to file appellant’s brief filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. [8913222-2] A/Pet’s Brief deadline updated to 01/17/2019 for Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. [18-20669] (ABT) [Entered: 11/06/2018 08:36 AM]
11/06/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 515.1 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [18-20669] (Nicole A. Saharsky ) [Entered: 11/06/2018 03:20 PM]
11/07/2018 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Nicole Ann Saharsky for party(s) Appellee Visa, Incorporated, in case 18-20669 [18-20669] (CAS) [Entered: 11/07/2018 10:24 AM]
11/07/2018  Open Document
4 pg, 82.61 KB
UNOPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. to view and obtain sealed document. Date of service: 11/07/2018 via email – Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Lieberman, Murphy, Post, Pratt; Attorney for Appellees: Bhansali, Kaplan, Keker, Merley, Rubin, Saharsky [18-20669] (Paul D. Clement ) [Entered: 11/07/2018 01:58 PM]
11/07/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 515.25 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [18-20669] (Andrew Tulumello ) [Entered: 11/07/2018 03:38 PM]
11/08/2018 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Andrew Tulumello for party(s) Appellee Visa, Incorporated, in case 18-20669 [18-20669] (CAS) [Entered: 11/08/2018 01:34 PM]
11/08/2018  Open Document
4 pg, 109.88 KB
UNOPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellee Visa, Incorporated to view and obtain sealed document. Date of service: 11/08/2018 via email – Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Lieberman, Murphy, Post, Pratt; Attorney for Appellees: Bhansali, Kaplan, Keker, Merley, Rubin, Saharsky, Tulumello [18-20669] (Nicole A. Saharsky ) [Entered: 11/08/2018 06:15 PM]
11/13/2018  Open Document
2 pg, 216.18 KB
COURT ORDER GRANTING appellant’s unopposed motion to view and obtain all sealed documents. [8915626-2] [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 11/13/2018 10:02 AM]
11/13/2018  Open Document
2 pg, 217.94 KB
COURT ORDER GRANTING appellee’s unopposed motion to view and obtain all sealed documents [8917033-2]. [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 11/13/2018 10:09 AM]
11/19/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 515.97 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [18-20669] (Allyson Newton Ho ) [Entered: 11/19/2018 05:59 PM]
11/19/2018  Open Document
4 pg, 109.15 KB
MOTION filed by Attorney Ms. Nicole Ann Saharsky for Appellee Visa, Incorporated to withdraw as counsel [8923772-2]. Date of Service: 11/19/2018 via email – Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Lieberman, Murphy, Post, Pratt; Attorney for Appellees: Bhansali, Kaplan, Keker, Merley, Rubin, Saharsky, Tulumello [18-20669] (Nicole A. Saharsky ) [Entered: 11/19/2018 06:12 PM]
11/20/2018 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Allyson Newton Ho for party(s) Appellee Visa, Incorporated, in case 18-20669 [18-20669] (CAS) [Entered: 11/20/2018 09:53 AM]
11/20/2018  Open Document
1 pg, 84.12 KB
CLERK ORDER granting Motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Nicole Ann Saharsky [8923772-2] [18-20669] (ABT) [Entered: 11/20/2018 02:01 PM]
01/17/2019  Open Restricted Document
0 pg, 0 KB
MOTION AND/OR DOCUMENT UNDER TEMPORARY SEAL pending a ruling by the court filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C.This document is unopposed. Date of service: 01/17/2019 via email – Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Becker, Clement, Gannaway, Lieberman, Murphy, Post, Pratt, Selendy; Attorney for Appellees: Bhansali, Ho, Kaplan, Keker, Merley, Rubin, Tulumello [18-20669] (Paul D. Clement ) [Entered: 01/17/2019 02:40 PM]
01/17/2019  Open Document
4 pg, 311.13 KB
UNOPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. to place brief under seal [8964402-2], to place record excerpts under seal [8964402-3], and leave to file redacted appellant’s brief and record excerpts [8964402-4]. Date of service: 01/17/2019 [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 01/18/2019 10:15 AM]
01/17/2019  Open Restricted Document
0 pg, 0 KB
APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Pulse Network, L.L.C..
A/Pet’s Brief deadline satisfied. Appellee’s Brief due on 02/19/2019 for Appellee Visa, Incorporated. Paper Copies of Brief due on 01/23/2019 for Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 01/18/2019 10:18 AM]
01/17/2019  Open Restricted Document
0 pg, 0 KB
RECORD EXCERPTS FILED by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C.. Paper Copies of Record Excerpts due on 01/23/2019 for Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 01/18/2019 10:26 AM]
01/18/2019 ATTORNEYS NOT PARTICIPATING. Michael Becker, William Pratt, and Jennifer Selendy is designated as inactive in this case. Reason: no appearance forms filed. [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 01/18/2019 10:31 AM]
01/21/2019 Paper copies of Appellant Brief filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. in 18-20669 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [18-20669] (SBS) [Entered: 01/22/2019 02:49 PM]
01/21/2019 Paper copies of Record Excerpts filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. in 18-20669 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 4. Paper Copies of Record Excerpts due deadline satisfied. [18-20669] (SBS) [Entered: 01/22/2019 02:50 PM]
01/24/2019  Open Document
33 pg, 257.38 KB
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF FILED by Retail Litigation Center, Incorporated. The Consent is Included in the Brief.

Paper Copies of Brief due on 01/29/2019 for Amicus Curiae Retail Litigation Center, Incorporated. [18-20669]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF FILED by The Retail Litigation Center, Inc.. Date of service: 01/24/2019 via email – Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Lieberman, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Bhansali, Ho, Kaplan, Keker, Merley, Rubin, Tulumello [18-20669] (Eric Franklin Citron ) [Entered: 01/24/2019 02:03 PM]

01/24/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 51.7 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [18-20669] (Shannen Wayne Coffin ) [Entered: 01/24/2019 02:16 PM]
01/24/2019  Open Document
37 pg, 346.55 KB
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF FILED by Food Marketing Institute, National Retail Federation, National Association of Convenience Stores and Merchant Advisory Group. The Consent is Included in the Brief.

Paper Copies of Brief due on 01/29/2019 for Amici Curiae Merchant Advisory Group, National Association of Convenience Stores, National Retail Federation and Food Marketing Institute. [18-20669]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF FILED by MERCHANT ADVISORY GROUP,NACS, NATIONAL RETAIL FEDERATION, AND FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE. Date of service: 01/24/2019 via email – Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Lieberman, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Bhansali, Ho, Kaplan, Keker, Merley, Rubin, Tulumello [18-20669] (Shannen Wayne Coffin ) [Entered: 01/24/2019 02:22 PM]

01/24/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 141.87 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [18-20669] (Eric Franklin Citron ) [Entered: 01/24/2019 02:34 PM]
01/24/2019 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Shannen Wayne Coffin for Amicus Curiae Food Marketing Institute in 18-20669, Attorney Shannen Wayne Coffin for Amicus Curiae National Retail Federation in 18-20669, Attorney Shannen Wayne Coffin for Amicus Curiae National Association of Convenience Stores in 18-20669, Attorney Shannen Wayne Coffin for Amicus Curiae Merchant Advisory Group in 18-20669 [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 01/24/2019 03:28 PM]
01/24/2019 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Eric Franklin Citron for Amicus Curiae Retail Litigation Center, Incorporated in 18-20669 [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 01/24/2019 03:29 PM]
01/24/2019  Open Document
36 pg, 293.15 KB
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF FILED by SHAZAM, Incorporated. The Consent is Included in the Brief. Paper Copies of Brief due on 02/04/2019 for Amicus Curiae SHAZAM, Incorporated. [18-20669]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF FILED by SHAZAM, Inc.. Date of service: 01/24/2018 via email – Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Lieberman, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Bhansali, Ho, Kaplan, Keker, Merley, Rubin, Tulumello; Attorney for Amici Curiae: Citron, Coffin [18-20669] (Seth David Greenstein ) [Entered: 01/24/2019 03:47 PM]
01/24/2019 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Seth David Greenstein for Amicus Curiae SHAZAM, Incorporated in 18-20669 [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 01/29/2019 10:37 AM]
01/25/2019  Open Document
3 pg, 112.26 KB
COURT ORDER GRANTING Appellant’s unopposed motion to file Appellant’s Brief under seal [8964402-2]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellant’s unopposed motion to file Record Excerpts under seal is GRANTED [8964402-3]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellant’s unopposed motion to file redacted Appellant’s Brief and Record Excerpts is GRANTED. [8964402-4] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the party is directed to file redacted Appellant’s Brief and Record Excerpts within 14 days from this date. The un-redacted Appellant’s Brief and Record Excerpts will remain on file for the court’s use. Redacted Appellant’s brief due on 02/08/2019 for Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. Redacted Record Excerpts due on 02/08/2019 for Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the party is directed to electronically file a copy of the Record Excerpts, with all sealed material removed. The party will then provide the clerk of court two paper copies of the Record Excerpts, one with all required documents and one with all sealed material removed. The complete set of Record Excerpts will be for court use only. The set without sealed material will be made available on the public docket.[18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 01/25/2019 01:09 PM]
01/28/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 48.89 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [18-20669] (Linda C. Bailey ) [Entered: 01/28/2019 10:46 AM]
01/28/2019 Paper copies of Amicus Brief filed by Retail Litigation Center, Incorporated in 18-20669 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes. # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 01/30/2019 03:48 PM]
01/29/2019 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Linda C. Bailey for party(s) Amicus Curiae National Association of Convenience Stores Amicus Curiae Food Marketing Institute Amicus Curiae National Retail Federation Amicus Curiae Merchant Advisory Group, in case 18-20669 [18-20669] (ABT) [Entered: 01/29/2019 01:43 PM]
01/29/2019 Paper copies of Amicus Brief filed by National Retail Federation, Merchant Advisory Group, National Association of Convenience Stores and Food Marketing Institute in 18-20669 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [18-20669] (MCS) [Entered: 01/30/2019 09:59 AM]
01/29/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 77.64 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the paper copies of amicus brief received from Amici Curiae Food Marketing Institute, Merchant Advisory Group and National Retail Federation because they are duplicate copies of briefs received and already on file. [18-20669] (SBS) [Entered: 01/31/2019 10:43 AM]
01/30/2019  Open Document
70 pg, 1.1 MB
REDACTED APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED
Miscellaneous deadline satisfied. Paper Copies of Brief due on 02/11/2019 for Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. [18-20669]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: REDACTED APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Pulse Network, L.L.C. Miscellaneous deadline satisfied [18-20669] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: REDACTED APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Pulse Network, L.L.C.. Date of service: 01/30/2019 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Bailey, Citron, Coffin, Greenstein; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Lieberman, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Bhansali, Ho, Kaplan, Keker, Merley, Rubin, Tulumello [18-20669] (Paul D. Clement ) [Entered: 01/30/2019 09:50 AM]
01/30/2019  Open Document
45 pg, 1.08 MB
REDACTED RECORD EXCERPTS FILED. Paper Copies of Redacted Record Excerpts due on 02/11/2019 for Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. [18-20669]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: REDACTED RECORD EXCERPTS FILED by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C.. Date of service: 01/30/2019 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Bailey, Citron, Coffin, Greenstein; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Lieberman, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Bhansali, Ho, Kaplan, Keker, Merley, Rubin, Tulumello [18-20669] (Paul D. Clement ) [Entered: 01/30/2019 09:52 AM]
01/31/2019 Paper copies of Amicus Brief filed by SHAZAM, Incorporated in 18-20669 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [18-20669] (SBS) [Entered: 01/31/2019 11:34 AM]
02/01/2019 REDACTED Paper copies of Appellant Brief filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. in 18-20669 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [18-20669] (SBS) [Entered: 02/04/2019 01:50 PM]
02/01/2019 REDACTED Paper copies of Record Excerpts filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. in 18-20669 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 4. Paper Copies of Record Excerpts due deadline satisfied. [18-20669] (SBS) [Entered: 02/04/2019 01:51 PM]
02/05/2019  Open Document
6 pg, 133.04 KB
UNOPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellee Visa, Incorporated to extend time to file brief of appellee until 04/02/2019 [8976669-2]. Date of service: 02/05/2019 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Bailey, Citron, Coffin, Greenstein; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Lieberman, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Bhansali, Ho, Kaplan, Keker, Merley, Rubin, Tulumello [18-20669] (Allyson Newton Ho ) [Entered: 02/05/2019 09:11 AM]
02/05/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 75.77 KB
CLERK ORDER granting Motion to extend time to file appellee’s brief filed by Appellee Visa, Incorporated [8976669-2]. Appellee’s Brief due on 04/05/2019 for Appellee Visa, Incorporated [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 02/05/2019 03:33 PM]
02/28/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 25.56 KB
LETTER filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. Withdrawing Michael D. Lieberman as counsel. Date of Service: 02/28/2019 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Bailey, Citron, Coffin, Greenstein; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Lieberman, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Bhansali, Ho, Kaplan, Keker, Merley, Rubin, Tulumello [18-20669] (Michael Dallas Lieberman ) [Entered: 02/28/2019 03:08 PM]
03/01/2019 ATTORNEY NOT PARTICIPATING. Michael D. Lieberman is designated as inactive in this case. Reason:counsel is no longer participating. [18-20669] (ABT) [Entered: 03/01/2019 07:39 AM]
04/05/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 514.97 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [18-20669] (Jacob T. Spencer ) [Entered: 04/05/2019 03:32 PM]
04/05/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 516.57 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [18-20669] (Bradley G. Hubbard ) [Entered: 04/05/2019 03:34 PM]
04/05/2019  Open Restricted Document
0 pg, 0 KB
MOTION AND/OR DOCUMENT UNDER TEMPORARY SEAL pending a ruling by the court filed by Appellee Visa, IncorporatedThis document is unopposed. Date of service: 04/05/2019 via email – Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Bhansali, Ho, Kaplan, Keker, Merley, Rubin, Tulumello [18-20669] (Allyson Newton Ho ) [Entered: 04/05/2019 06:13 PM]
04/05/2019  Open Document
4 pg, 221.05 KB
UNOPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellee Visa, Incorporated to place brief under seal [9024311-2]. Date of service: 04/05/2019 [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 04/08/2019 01:53 PM]
04/05/2019  Open Restricted Document
0 pg, 0 KB
APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED by Visa, Incorporated. E/Res’s Brief deadline satisfied. Reply Brief due on 04/26/2019 for Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 04/08/2019 02:05 PM]
04/08/2019 ATTORNEY NOT PARTICIPATING. Asim Bhansali is designated as inactive in this case. Reason:no appearance form filed. [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 04/08/2019 01:49 PM]
04/08/2019 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Jacob T. Spencer for party(s) Appellee Visa, Incorporated, in case 18-20669 [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 04/08/2019 02:07 PM]
04/08/2019 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Bradley G. Hubbard for party(s) Appellee Visa, Incorporated, in case 18-20669 [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 04/08/2019 02:08 PM]
04/09/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 107.96 KB
COURT ORDER GRANTING Appellee’s unopposed motion to file its brief under seal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellee is directed to file a redacted brief within 14 days from this date. The un-redacted Appellee’s brief will remain on file for the court’s use [9024311-2]. Redacted brief is due on 04/23/2019 for Appellee Visa, Incorporated. [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 04/09/2019 10:52 AM]
04/09/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 76.81 KB
PAPER COPIES REQUESTED for the Sealed/Un-Redacted Appellee Brief filed by Appellee Visa, Incorporated in 18-20669 [9024324-2]. Paper Copies of Brief due on 04/15/2019 for Appellee Visa, Incorporated. [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 04/09/2019 10:56 AM]
04/10/2019  Open Document
5 pg, 29.07 KB
UNOPPOSED LEVEL 1 EXTENSION REQUESTED by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. for filing Reply Brief until 05/06/2019 [18-20669] (Paul D. Clement ) [Entered: 04/10/2019 08:40 AM]
04/10/2019 EXTENSION RECEIVED for Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C.. Extension Granted in Part to and including 05/03/2019. Reason: Lacking Substantial Reason(s). Reply Brief deadline updated to 05/03/2019 for Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. [18-20669] (JMW) [Entered: 04/10/2019 09:26 AM]
04/11/2019 Paper copies of Appellee Brief filed by Appellee Visa, Incorporated in 18-20669 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [18-20669] (SRF) [Entered: 04/11/2019 02:09 PM]
04/11/2019  Open Document
73 pg, 549.37 KB
REDACTED APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED # of Copies Provided: 0 Paper Copies of Brief due on 04/16/2019 for Appellee Visa, Incorporated. [18-20669]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: REDACTED APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED by Visa, Incorporated. Date of service: 04/11/2019 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Bailey, Citron, Coffin, Greenstein; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Ho, Hubbard, Kaplan, Keker, Merley, Rubin, Spencer, Tulumello [18-20669] (Allyson Newton Ho ) [Entered: 04/11/2019 03:48 PM]
04/12/2019  Open Document
30 pg, 694.61 KB
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF FILED by Washington Legal Foundation, Mr. Geoffrey A. Manne and Mr. Richard Epstein. The Consent is Included in the Brief.

Paper Copies of Brief due on 04/17/2019 for Amici Curiae Richard Epstein, Geoffrey A. Manne and Washington Legal Foundation. [18-20669]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF FILED by Richard A. Epstein, Geoffrey A. Manne, & Washington Legal Foundation. Date of service: 04/12/2019 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Bailey, Citron, Coffin, Greenstein; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Ho, Hubbard, Kaplan, Keker, Merley, Rubin, Spencer, Tulumello [18-20669] (Cory L. Andrews ) [Entered: 04/12/2019 09:40 AM]

04/12/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 171.44 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [18-20669] (Cory L. Andrews ) [Entered: 04/12/2019 10:11 AM]
04/12/2019 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Cory L. Andrews for Amicus Curiae Washington Legal Foundation in 18-20669, Attorney Cory L. Andrews for Amicus Curiae Geoffrey A. Manne in 18-20669, Attorney Cory L. Andrews for Amicus Curiae Richard Epstein in 18-20669 [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 04/12/2019 01:10 PM]
04/18/2019 Paper copies of Amicus Brief filed by Washington Legal Foundation, Mr. Richard Epstein and Mr. Geoffrey A. Manne in 18-20669 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [18-20669] (SBS) [Entered: 04/18/2019 03:43 PM]
04/23/2019 REDACTED Paper copies of Appellee Brief filed by Appellee Visa, Incorporated in 18-20669 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [18-20669] (MAS) [Entered: 04/23/2019 01:25 PM]
05/03/2019  Open Restricted Document
0 pg, 0 KB
MOTION AND/OR DOCUMENT UNDER TEMPORARY SEAL pending a ruling by the court filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C.This document is unopposed. Date of service: 05/03/2019 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Andrews, Bailey, Citron, Coffin, Greenstein; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Ho, Hubbard, Kaplan, Keker, Merley, Rubin, Spencer, Tulumello [18-20669] (Paul D. Clement ) [Entered: 05/03/2019 03:24 PM]
05/03/2019  Open Document
4 pg, 38.83 KB
UNOPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. to place reply brief under seal [9045480-2]. Date of service: 05/03/2019 [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 05/06/2019 11:11 AM]
05/03/2019  Open Restricted Document
0 pg, 0 KB
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED by Pulse Network, L.L.C.
Reply Brief deadline satisfied. (Paper copies will be requested upon disposition of the motion to place brief under seal) [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 05/06/2019 11:13 AM]
05/06/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 108.95 KB
COURT ORDER GRANTING Appellant’s unopposed motion to file its reply brief under seal [9045480-2]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant is directed to file a redacted reply brief within 14 days from this date. The un-redacted Appellant’s reply brief will remain on file for the court’s use. Redacted reply brief due on 05/20/2019 for Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 05/06/2019 01:45 PM]
05/06/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 76.16 KB
PAPER COPIES REQUESTED for the Sealed Appellant Reply Brief filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. in 18-20669 [9045488-2]. Paper Copies of Brief due on 05/13/2019 for Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 05/06/2019 01:52 PM]
05/07/2019  Open Document
39 pg, 483.25 KB
REDACTED APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED
Paper Copies of Redacted Brief due on 05/13/2019 for Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C.. [18-20669]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: REDACTED APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED by Pulse Network, L.L.C.. Date of service: 05/07/2019 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Andrews, Bailey, Citron, Coffin, Greenstein; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Ho, Hubbard, Kaplan, Keker, Merley, Rubin, Spencer, Tulumello [18-20669] (Paul D. Clement ) [Entered: 05/07/2019 12:39 PM]
05/08/2019 Paper copies of Unredated Appellant Reply Brief filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. in 18-20669 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. [18-20669] (SBS) [Entered: 05/09/2019 10:20 AM]
05/10/2019 Paper copies of Redacted Appellant Reply Brief filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. in 18-20669 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [18-20669] (SBS) [Entered: 05/13/2019 10:38 AM]
08/05/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 87 KB
CASE TENTATIVELY calendared for oral argument for the week of 10/07/2019. [18-20669] (GAM) [Entered: 08/05/2019 12:50 PM]
08/19/2019 CASE CALENDARED for oral argument on Wednesday, 10/09/2019 in New Orleans in the East Courtroom — PM session. In accordance with our policy, lead counsel only will receive via email at a later date a copy of the court’s docket and an acknowledgment form. All other counsel of record should monitor the court’s website for the posting of the oral argument calendars.. [18-20669] (PFT) [Entered: 08/19/2019 09:48 AM]
10/09/2019 ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD before Judges Owen, Jones, Smith. Arguing Person Information Updated for: Paul D. Clement arguing for Appellant Pulse Network; Arguing Person Information Updated for: Allyson Newton Ho arguing for Appellee Visa, Inc. [18-20669] (PFT) [Entered: 10/09/2019 02:38 PM]
06/04/2020 CALENDARED CASE CONTINUED. Case to be re-argued. [18-20669] (GAM) [Entered: 07/24/2020 11:01 AM]
06/05/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 78.01 KB
LETTER OF ADVISEMENT. Reason: Case to be set for re-argument. [18-20669] (GAM) [Entered: 06/05/2020 06:33 AM]
06/05/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 85.88 KB
CASE TENTATIVELY calendared for oral argument for the week of 08/31/2020. [18-20669] (GAM) [Entered: 06/05/2020 07:42 AM]
07/24/2020 CASE CALENDARED for oral argument on Monday, 08/31/2020 in New Orleans in the East Courtroom — PM session. In accordance with our policy, lead counsel only will receive via email at a later date a copy of the court’s docket and an acknowledgment form. All other counsel of record should monitor the court’s website for the posting of the oral argument calendars.. [18-20669] (SME) [Entered: 07/24/2020 11:07 AM]
08/11/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 77.05 KB
COURT DIRECTIVE ISSUED. The panel unanimously agrees that oral argument in this case will not occur during the week of August 31, 2020. Instead, the panel will reschedule argument for a later month before the same panel, depending on when the court is able to return to normal operations. [18-20669] (SME) [Entered: 08/11/2020 02:38 PM]
01/14/2021  Open Document
1 pg, 79.83 KB
LETTER filed withdrawl of appearance for Mark R. Merley. [18-20669]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: LETTER filed by Appellee Visa, Incorporated re: Withdrawal of Appearance of Mark R. Merley. Date of Service: 01/14/2021 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Andrews, Bailey, Citron, Coffin, Greenstein; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Ho, Hubbard, Kaplan, Keker, Merley, Rubin, Spencer, Tulumello [18-20669] (Michael Adam Rubin ) [Entered: 01/14/2021 04:05 PM]
01/14/2021 ATTORNEY NOT PARTICIPATING. Michael Merley is designated as inactive in this case. Reason: no longer participating in this case. [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 01/14/2021 04:19 PM]
02/03/2021  Open Document
25 pg, 309.25 KB
SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES (FRAP 28j) FILED by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. Date of Service: 02/03/2021 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Andrews, Bailey, Citron, Coffin, Greenstein; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Ho, Hubbard, Kaplan, Keker, Rubin, Spencer, Tulumello [18-20669] (Paul D. Clement ) [Entered: 02/03/2021 01:33 PM]
02/12/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 196.5 KB
RESPONSE filed by Appellee Visa, Incorporated to the 28j Letter filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. [9496325-2] Date of Service: 02/12/2021 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Andrews, Bailey, Citron, Coffin, Greenstein; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Ho, Hubbard, Kaplan, Keker, Rubin, Spencer, Tulumello [18-20669] (Allyson Newton Ho ) [Entered: 02/12/2021 03:45 PM]
04/13/2021 CALENDARED CASE CONTINUED pending rescheduling. [18-20669] (SME) [Entered: 04/13/2021 01:12 PM]
04/13/2021 CASE CALENDARED for oral argument on Monday, 08/30/2021 in New Orleans in the West Courtroom –2:30 PM session. In accordance with our policy, lead counsel only will receive via email at a later date a copy of the court’s docket and an acknowledgment form. All other counsel of record should monitor the court’s website for the posting of the oral argument calendars.. [18-20669] (SME) [Entered: 04/13/2021 01:13 PM]
07/22/2021  Open Document
2 pg, 82.08 KB
The ORAL ARGUMENT panel has requested of the parties the following: supplemental letters. Miscellaneous due on 08/09/2021 for Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. and Appellee Visa, Incorporated [18-20669] (SME) [Entered: 07/22/2021 08:48 AM]
08/09/2021  Open Restricted Document
0 pg, 0 KB
MOTION AND/OR DOCUMENT UNDER TEMPORARY SEAL pending a ruling by the court filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C.This document is unopposed. Date of service: 08/09/2021 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Andrews, Bailey, Citron, Coffin, Greenstein; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Ho, Hubbard, Kaplan, Keker, Rubin, Spencer, Tulumello [18-20669] (Paul D. Clement ) [Entered: 08/09/2021 06:48 PM]
08/09/2021  Open Restricted Document
0 pg, 0 KB
MOTION AND/OR DOCUMENT UNDER TEMPORARY SEAL pending a ruling by the court filed by Appellee Visa, IncorporatedThis document is unopposed. Date of service: 08/09/2021 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Andrews, Bailey, Citron, Coffin, Greenstein; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Ho, Hubbard, Kaplan, Keker, Rubin, Spencer, Tulumello [18-20669] (Allyson Newton Ho ) [Entered: 08/09/2021 06:52 PM]
08/09/2021  Open Document
5 pg, 128.77 KB
UNOPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. to place supplemental letter brief under seal [9638780-2]. Date of service: 08/09/2021 [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 08/10/2021 08:31 AM]
08/09/2021  Open Restricted Document
0 pg, 0 KB
APPELLANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER BRIEF FILED by Pulse Network, L.L.C.. [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 08/10/2021 08:37 AM]
08/09/2021  Open Document
5 pg, 100.64 KB
UNOPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellee Visa, Incorporated to place supplemental letter brief under seal [9638868-2]. Date of service: 08/09/2021 [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 08/10/2021 09:09 AM]
08/09/2021  Open Restricted Document
0 pg, 0 KB
APPELLEE’S SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER BRIEF FILED by Visa, Incorporated. Miscellaneous deadlines satisfied [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 08/10/2021 09:12 AM]
08/10/2021  Open Document
2 pg, 143.17 KB
COURT ORDER granting Motion to place brief under seal filed by Appellee Visa, Incorporated [9638868-2], granting Motion to place brief under seal filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. [9638780-2] This order also applies to any reply letters filed by August 16, 2021, without the necessity of motions. Redacted Supplemental Letter Briefs due on 08/16/2021 for Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. and Appellee Visa, Incorporated [18-20669] (CAG) [Entered: 08/10/2021 12:26 PM]
08/11/2021  Open Document
8 pg, 262.83 KB
REDACTED APPELLANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FILED. # of Copies Provided: 0. Miscellaneous deadline satisfied [18-20669] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: REDACTED APPELLANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FILED by Pulse Network, L.L.C.. Date of service: 08/11/2021 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Andrews, Bailey, Citron, Coffin, Greenstein; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Ho, Hubbard, Kaplan, Keker, Rubin, Spencer, Tulumello [18-20669] (Paul D. Clement ) [Entered: 08/11/2021 04:32 PM]
08/16/2021  Open Document
11 pg, 260.9 KB
APPELLEE’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FILED # of Copies Provided: 0. Miscellaneous deadline satisfied [18-20669] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: REDACTED APPELLEE’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FILED by Visa, Incorporated Date of service: 08/16/2021 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Andrews, Bailey, Citron, Coffin, Greenstein; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Ho, Hubbard, Kaplan, Keker, Rubin, Spencer, Tulumello [18-20669] (Allyson Newton Ho ) [Entered: 08/16/2021 03:37 PM]
08/16/2021  Open Restricted Document
0 pg, 0 KB
MOTION AND/OR DOCUMENT UNDER TEMPORARY SEAL pending a ruling by the court filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C.Date of service: 08/16/2021 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Andrews, Bailey, Citron, Coffin, Greenstein; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Ho, Hubbard, Kaplan, Keker, Rubin, Spencer, Tulumello [18-20669] (Paul D. Clement ) [Entered: 08/16/2021 07:04 PM]
08/16/2021  Open Document
5 pg, 236.64 KB
REDACTED APPELLANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF FILED Date of service: 08/16/2021 # of Copies Provided: 0. [18-20669] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: REDACTED SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF FILED by Pulse Network, L.L.C. Date of service: 08/16/2021 [18-20669] (Paul D. Clement ) [Entered: 08/16/2021 07:05 PM]
08/16/2021  Open Restricted Document
0 pg, 0 KB
MOTION AND/OR DOCUMENT UNDER TEMPORARY SEAL pending a ruling by the court filed by Appellee Visa, IncorporatedDate of service: 08/16/2021 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Andrews, Bailey, Citron, Coffin, Greenstein; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Ho, Hubbard, Kaplan, Keker, Rubin, Spencer, Tulumello [18-20669] (Allyson Newton Ho ) [Entered: 08/16/2021 08:42 PM]
08/16/2021  Open Document
5 pg, 174.67 KB
REDACTED APPELLEE’S SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF FILED Date of service: 08/16/2021 # of Copies Provided: 0. [18-20669] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: REDACTED SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF FILED by Visa, Incorporated Date of service: 08/16/2021 [18-20669] (Allyson Newton Ho ) [Entered: 08/16/2021 08:48 PM]
08/16/2021  Open Restricted Document
0 pg, 0 KB
APPELLANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF FILED by Pulse Network, L.L.C.
Date of service: 08/16/2021 # of Copies Provided: 0. [18-20669] (RLL) [Entered: 08/17/2021 03:08 PM]
08/16/2021  Open Restricted Document
0 pg, 0 KB
APPELLEE’S SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF FILED by Visa, Incorporated
Date of service: 08/16/2021 # of Copies Provided: 0. [18-20669] (RLL) [Entered: 08/17/2021 03:10 PM]
08/27/2021  Open Document
2 pg, 234 KB
Oral argument moved from Monday, August 30, 2021 to Thursday, September 23, 2021. [18-20669] (GAM) [Entered: 08/27/2021 11:56 AM]
08/27/2021  Open Document
4 pg, 287.14 KB
UNOPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. to continue oral argument [9655270-2]. Date of service: 08/27/2021 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Andrews, Bailey, Citron, Coffin, Greenstein; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Clement, Gannaway, Murphy, Post; Attorney for Appellees: Ho, Hubbard, Kaplan, Keker, Rubin, Spencer, Tulumello [18-20669] (Paul D. Clement ) [Entered: 08/27/2021 04:41 PM]
09/07/2021  Open Document
2 pg, 140.24 KB
COURT ORDER GRANTING unnopposed motion to continue oral argument filed by Appellant Pulse Network, L.L.C. By further order, the court will set an alternative date. [9655270-2] [18-20669] (DLM) [Entered: 09/07/2021 08:19 AM]
09/09/2021  Open Document
2 pg, 241.03 KB
Oral argument moved from September 23, 2021 to Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 12:30 P.M. in New Orleans in the En Banc Courtroom. [18-20669] (PFT) [Entered: 09/09/2021 03:29 PM]
01/05/2022 ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD before Judges Smith, Willett, Duncan. Arguing Person Information Updated for: Paul D. Clement arguing for Appellant L.L.C. Pulse Network; Arguing Person Information Updated for: Allyson Newton Ho arguing for Appellee Incorporated Visa [18-20669] (SME) [Entered: 01/05/2022 12:06 PM]
04/05/2022  Open Document
25 pg, 365.28 KB
PUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [18-20669 Reversed in Part and Remanded ] Judge: JES , Judge: DRW , Judge: SKD. Mandate issue date is 04/27/2022 [18-20669] (NFD) [Entered: 04/05/2022 01:30 PM]
04/05/2022  Open Document
2 pg, 59.61 KB
JUDGMENT ENTERED AND FILED. Costs Taxed Against: Each Party Bear Its Own Costs On Appeal. [18-20669] (NFD) [Entered: 04/05/2022 01:39 PM]

April 5, 2022

DECIDED: PULSE NETWORK, LLC V. VISA, INC.

Case Issues:

Antitrust / Consumer Protection | Countering the Plaintiffs’ Bar | Government Regulation | Personal Jurisdiction / Standing to Sue

On April 5, 2022, the Fifth Circuit revived an effort by a competitor-plaintiff to weaken one of the core elements of antitrust standing: “antitrust injury.”
The decision was a setback for WLF, which urged affirmance of the federal trial court’s dismissal.

The case arose from Pulse Network’s lawsuit against Visa, Inc., claiming that Visa’s debit-network-pricing strategies are exclusionary and violate federal antitrust laws.

The district court rightly held that Pulse could not sue because it lacks antitrust injury—that is, even assuming that Visa’s conduct violates the antitrust laws (which Visa very much disputes), Pulse was not injured by any anti-competitive aspect of Visa’s conduct.

In its brief, WLF argued that Pulse’s theory of antitrust injury would make it much easier for struggling competitors to pursue litigation as a business strategy, bogging down thriving companies in meritless but time-consuming and expensive antitrust litigation.

WLF’s brief was joined by leading antitrust scholars Richard A. Epstein and Geoffrey A. Manne.

There’s a Bunch of Federal Judges Departing from this Financial Services Case, But Not Allyson Ho
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Laws In Texas first started as an independent investigative blog about the Financial Crisis and how the Banks and Government are colluding against the citizens and homeowners of the State of Texas, relying upon a system of #FakeDocs and post-crisis legal precedents, specially created by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to foreclose on homeowners around this great State. We are not lawyers. We do not offer legal advice. That stated, LIT's Blog has grown tremendously during the three or so years it has been operating and our reach is now nationwide as we expand via our micro-blogs in various states. Join us as we strive to bring back justice and honor to our Judiciary and Government employees, paid for by Citizens.

Donate to LawsInTexas. Make a Difference.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

We keep your data private and share your data only with third parties that make this service possible. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

© 2020-2023 LawInTexas com is an online trading name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware. | All Rights Reserved.

To Top