The International Handbook on Private Enforcement of Competition Law
Show Less

The International Handbook on Private Enforcement of Competition Law

Edited by Albert A. Foer and Jonathan W. Cuneo

With the international community on the brink of an explosion of private remedies for violation of national competition laws, this timely Handbook provides state-of-the-art analysis of the private enforcement of competition laws across the globe. Private enforcement of antitrust is becoming a significant component of competition policy laws worldwide; today, more than a hundred jurisdictions have adopted market regimes operating within a framework of competition law, providing a varied base for developing ways by which persons injured by anticompetitive conduct will (or will not) be able to obtain remedies.
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 9: Procedural Defenses Short of Trial

Jonathan L. Rubin


Jonathan L. Rubin1 Introduction Defendants in civil antitrust lawsuits brought in the US federal courts have several opportunities short of a trial on the merits by which to dispose of claims against them. This chapter concerns three categories of defenses: i) challenges to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, ii) defenses available by pre-answer motion, and iii) pretrial summary proceedings and affirmative defenses. The chapter that follows after this one deals with discovery issues under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure2 gives defendants 20 days after being legally notified of the suit filed against them (the ‘service of process’3) within which to serve the plaintiffs with a ‘responsive pleading’ answering the allegations in the complaint. The responsive pleading also must allege affirmative defenses the defendant intends to raise. The time to respond to a complaint may be extended to 60 days (or 90 days for defendants not found in any US judicial district) if the defendant acknowledges notice of the suit and waives objections to the form or manner of service of process.4 In practice, however, a responsive pleading is only rarely filed within the initial time limits that run from the time of service of process. Defendants more often opt to toll the time to respond through the use of Rule 12(b), which permits a defendant to interpose a pre-answer motion to dismiss raising the defenses enumerated in Rules 12(b)(1)–(7). The list is non-exhaustive. Generally speaking, Rule...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.