Mr. Crew has engaged in a commercial litigation practice for the past 40 years of his career and has tried many cases of all kinds, involving a wide range of industries and markets, in both federal and state courts throughout the country. While he has specialized in antitrust and unfair business practices litigation, Mr. Crew has tried a wide variety of commercial disputes: antitrust, patent disputes, contract disputes, theft of trade secrets, commercial fraud, trade libel, and Lanham Act violations, etc. Mr. Crew has argued cases before the United States Supreme Court and numerous federal and state trial and appellate courts throughout the country.
Representative Cases
- Microsoft Class Action Litigation, Mr. Crew is lead counsel for plaintiffs in a class action instituted against Microsoft under California's antitrust statutes. The lawsuit, which settled in 2003 for $1.1 billion after four years of litigation, was prosecuted on behalf of all California purchasers of Microsoft's personal computer operating system and applications software and alleged that Microsoft used its monopoly power to overcharge California businesses and consumers for its software products. The case settled in early 2003 with Microsoft agreeing to pay $1.1 billion to the class and the bulk of any unclaimed funds to go to the California Department of Education for the purchase of computer products for California's schools.
- LMP Corporation v. Universal Manufacturing Corporation, Alameda Superior Court, Case No. 590001-7. Plaintiffs were inventors of a patented energy saving electronic ballast technology which defendant licensed from plaintiffs, then shelved it for the purpose of eliminating competition from the market. Following a six month jury trial, Mr. Crew obtained a $96 million verdict for plaintiffs which was affirmed “without reservation” on appeal. [unpublished decision]
- St. Luke's Hospital v. California Pacific Medical Center, St. Luke's instituted a state court action under the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code §16720) and the Unfair Competition Act (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200) against California Pacific Medical Center and its parent Sutter Health System, alleging that defendants had long term exclusionary contracts with Brown & Toland (the largest physician group in Northern California) for the purpose of eliminating St. Luke's from the market. By preventing St. Luke's from competing on the merits for managed care patients, defendants' restraints threatened to shut down St. Luke's — leaving a large portion of the San Francisco community needing medical care at risk. Mr. Crew was successful in obtaining a settlement for St. Luke's on the eve of trial which guarantees St. Luke's the capital resources needed to allow it to continue its charity services to the needy of San Francisco for years to come.
- Mt. Hood Stages, Inc. v. Greyhound Corp., Mr. Crew represented Mt. Hood in this antitrust trial against Greyhound, resulting in the largest jury verdict in Oregon history. He argued for affirmance of this unprecedented judgment before the United States Supreme Court. Persuading the Court to expand the equitable doctrine of tolling in antitrust cases, Mr. Crew succeeded in recovering 20 years' worth of antitrust damages for plaintiff – almost $25 million – despite a four year statute of limitations.
- Ernest W. Hahn, Inc. v. Codding Enterprises, Mr. Crew represented Hahn – a nationally recognized developer of regional shopping centers – in this antitrust case against a competitor for having instigated over a dozen harassment suits against Hahn for the purpose of preventing the development of Hahn's shopping center as part of the City of Santa Rosa's urban renewal project. After the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's dismissal of Hahn's complaint, Mr. Crew tried Hahn's case before a federal jury for a month. The case then settled for $24 million.
- Daishowa International v. North Coast Export Co., This is one of several cases in which Mr. Crew reversed his client's role from accused defendant to successful plaintiff. Just 90 days before trial, defendant North Coast Export retained Mr. Crew to defend it in a federal court breach of contract action claiming several million dollars in damages. Immediately after he was retained, Mr. Crew discovered evidence that North Coast Export's contract with Daishowa was the result of a price fixing conspiracy between Daishowa and several others. He promptly counterclaimed under the antitrust laws, resulting in a substantial monetary payment to North Coast Export to settle the litigation.
- Determined Productions, Inc. v. R. Dakin & Co., This litigation also commenced with Dakin as defendant but concluded with Dakin as successful plaintiff. Determined Productions sued Dakin in federal court, alleging that Dakin had monopolized all Korean toy manufacturing sources with exclusive supply contracts in violation of the antitrust laws. Mr. Crew first obtained summary dismissal of the antitrust claims against Dakin. That was affirmed on appeal. Then, on behalf of Dakin, he brought suit against Determined Productions in state court alleging that Determined Productions' federal court action interfered with Dakin's exclusive supply contracts with the Korean manufacturers. The jury awarded a substantial judgment in Dakin's favor and that judgment was similarly affirmed on appeal.
- Service Engineering Co. v. Southwest Marine, Inc., This is another case in which Mr. Crew's client began as an impugned defendant but ended as a vindicated plaintiff. Southwest Marine and Triple A (represented by Mr. Crew) were major competitors in the U.S. Navy ship repair business on the West Coast. Southwest Marine began the fray by suing Triple A for theft of a trade secret (i.e., a “secret process” used in the preparation of competitive bids on U.S. Navy ship repair contracts). Mr. Crew first persuaded the California Court of Appeal to order the trial court to enter summary judgment in Triple A's favor because Southwest Marine's alleged trade secret was a fraudulent business practice. He then commenced a federal court action on behalf of Triple A, claiming Southwest Marine's fraudulent attempts to monopolize the U.S. Navy ship repair market violated the federal antitrust laws. A substantial monetary settlement in Triple A's favor ensued.
- Clipper Express v. RMMTB, In this antitrust suit by one motor carrier against 15 nationwide rival carriers, Mr. Crew got the Court of Appeals to establish — in the most sweeping of terms — several exceptions to the Noerr-Pennington immunity from the antitrust laws. The case then settled.
- State of California, Dept. of Food & Agric. v. Bronco Winery, Inc. Mr. Crew was retained by the Secretary of the State of California's Department of Food and Agriculture (Claire Berryhill) to represent him and the State in a six month trial of a complaint instituted by the State of California against a major California winery for its failure to pay over 40 California growers for their grape harvest in accordance with the California Food and Agriculture Code. Mr. Crew prevailed, and the judgment was affirmed by the appellate court.
- Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Campbell Indus. Following trial, a federal jury returned its verdict that defendant had violated the antitrust laws by excluding plaintiff from access to a Navy ship repair drydock in San Diego. The verdict was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the case was remanded solely for a determination of damages. Defendant then retained Mr. Crew (who did not represent defendant at the liability trial) to represent it at the damage trial. Mr. Crew immediately moved for summary judgment, however, contending that defendant's actions were protected from antitrust liability by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The federal court granted defendant's motion, and plaintiff did not appeal
- JBL Enterprises, Inc. v. Jhirmack Enterprises, Inc., International Playtex acquired Jhirmack (the California shampoo company) which had previously distributed its shampoo products solely through professional hair salons. After the acquisition, Playtex began to merchandise Jhirmack “over-the- counter” — i.e., through retail chain outlets. Several professional salon distributors instituted antitrust lawsuits against Playtex, which the court ordered consolidated for trial. Mr. Crew defended Playtex at trial, resulting in a judgment for Playtex that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
- Amarel v. Connell Rice and Sugar Co., Mr. Crew defended Connell, the largest rice exporter in the United States, in a nine week jury trial of antitrust claims brought against Connell and Joseph L. Alioto (the former Mayor of San Francisco) in connection with the sale of over $100 million worth of California rice to the Government of Korea during the 1980s. Plaintiffs were 70 Northern California rice growers. The jury returned a verdict for defendants and, following appeal, was settled for mutual releases and the payment of defendants' costs.
- The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company et al. v. Superior Court, Mr. Crew represented three life insurance brokers who provided consulting services to the personal injury plaintiffs' bar in connection with the sale of annuities used to fund “structured settlements” of tort victims' injury claims. Defendants were several life insurance carriers and brokers who, plaintiffs alleged, concertedly refused to provide needed annuity information to any broker who consulted with personal injury victims' lawyers. Defendants therefore boycotted plaintiffs for the purpose of barring them from the market and thereby minimizing the compensation received by tort victims for their injuries. Mr. Crew won an important ruling from the California Supreme Court that life insurance companies are not exempt from California's antitrust laws and that plaintiffs therefore also had a valid claim under Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 for unfair competition. A substantial monetary settlement in plaintiffs' favor ensued.
- Grid Systems Corp. v. Texas Instruments, Inc., Mr. Crew was retained as lead antitrust trial counsel for plaintiff Tandy Corporation (“Radio Shack”) in this patent/antitrust case against Texas Instruments (“TI”). Tandy alleged that TI violated the Sherman Act by (1) obtaining a key patent through fraud on the PTO and (2) using that fraudulently obtained patent to force Tandy to license TI's entire portfolio of patents for $50 million. After plaintiffs obtained favorable rulings from Judge Lowell Jensen, the case was settled for a substantial (but confidential) sum.
- * United States v. General Electric Co., Mr. Crew was retained as lead trial counsel for the Department of Justice to represent the United States in this antitrust complaint against General Electric, alleging that GE violated the Sherman Act by forcing hospitals purchasing GE's medical imaging equipment and licensing its equipment maintenance software to agree not to compete with GE in servicing any other hospital's medical imaging equipment. After obtaining a favorable ruling from the Court, the Justice Department got GE to remove its illegal restriction.