Fujifilm Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc. v. Goldman Sachs & Co.
- 1:15-cv-08307
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Fujifilm Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc. v. Goldman Sachs & Co., the court granted summary judgment and dismissed Fujifilm’s claims for lack of antitrust standing.
Fujifilm Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc. and the other named plaintiffs whose claims were dismissed, as well as the Individual Purchaser plaintiffs whose claims were subject to the defendants’ summary-judgment motion.
What happened
In Fujifilm Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc. v. Goldman Sachs & Co., the court entered judgment in a group of related aluminum-warehousing antitrust cases. The judgment followed the court’s February 17, 2021 Opinion and Order.
The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the Individual Purchaser plaintiffs’ claims. It also dismissed all claims brought by Fujifilm and the other named plaintiffs in the related cases for lack of antitrust standing.
The court dismissed all claims in the listed cases, including Fujifilm’s case. The judgment was entered by the clerk, and the opinion text does not identify the deciding judge; the court issued the ruling.
The detailed version
- Fujifilm Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc. v. Goldman Sachs & Co. · No. 1:15-cv-08307
- Feb. 19, 2021
Background
The judgment concerns Fujifilm Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc. v. Goldman Sachs & Co., one of several related cases in the aluminum-warehousing antitrust litigation. The judgment states that it was based on the court’s Opinion and Order dated February 17, 2021. That underlying opinion is not included in the provided text.
Ruling
The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the Individual Purchaser plaintiffs’ claims. Summary judgment is a decision entered without a trial when the court determines that the claims cannot proceed under the governing legal standards.
The judgment states that all claims brought by Agfa Corporation and AGFA Graphics NV, Mag Instrument, Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, and Fujifilm Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc. were dismissed for lack of antitrust standing. Antitrust standing concerns whether a plaintiff is legally entitled to pursue an antitrust claim. Accordingly, the court dismissed all claims in case numbers 14 Civ. 211, 14 Civ. 217, 14 Civ. 6849, and 15 Civ. 8307.
Effect of the Judgment
For Fujifilm’s case, the judgment dismissed all claims. The text does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The footnote explains that a separate related action involving Ampal was not given partial judgment because some of Ampal’s claims remained in that action.
Judge and Entry
The provided text identifies Ruby J. Krajick as the clerk of court, acting through a deputy clerk, but does not identify the judge who issued the February 17 Opinion and Order. The court entered this judgment on February 19, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.