Thomas Nevins is a partner in the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Practice Group in the firm's San Francisco office.
Areas of Practice
Mr. Nevins specializes in complex business litigation, with an emphasis in antitrust, price discrimination, and unfair competition. Prior to joining Sheppard Mullin, Mr. Nevins was an associate and partner at Broad, Schulz, Larson & Wineberg, San Francisco (1983-1994).
Representative Litigation Cases
Reilly v. The Hearst Corporation, 107 F.Supp.2d 1192 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (acquisition challenged under the Clayton Act and Sherman Act);
Pan Asia Venture Capital Corporation v. The Hearst Corporation, et al., 74 Cal.App.4th 424 (1999) (alleged pricing below cost under California Business and Professions Code 17043);
City of Long Beach v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 46 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 1995), and 872 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir.), modified, 886 F.2d 246 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1076 (1990) (alleged price fixing and conspiracy to monopolize);
Tominaga v. Shepherd, 682 F.Supp. 1489 (C.D. Cal. 1988) (alleged group boycott, refusal deal and tying);
Northern California Booksellers Association v. The Hearst Corporation, United States District Court for Northern District of California (alleged secondary line price discrimination under Robinson-Patman Act 2(a));
Harris v. Duty Free Shoppers Limited Partnership, 940 F.2d 1272 (9th Cir. 1991) (alleged secret rebates under Robinson-Patman Act 2(c));
Western Shoe Gallery, Inc. v. Duty Free Shoppers Ltd., 593 F.Supp. 348 (N.D. Cal. 1984) (alleged secret rebates under Robinson-Patman Act 2(c));
Tomizaki v. Duty Fee Shoppers Ltd., San Francisco Superior Court (alleged secret rebates under California Business & Professions Code 17045);
Frontier Enterprises, Inc. v. Amador Stage Lines, Inc., 1985-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 66, 827 (E.D. Cal. 1985) (alleged sham litigation and price squeeze under Sherman Act 01 and 2).
Publications & News
•San Jose's Athletics appeal on shaky ground
Daily Journal, September 3, 2014
•California Antitrust & Unfair Competition Law Book
August 9, 2005
•California Antitrust and Unfair Competition Book
May 28, 2003
Antitrust Law Blog Posts
• Regulatory Capture Vitiates State Action Immunity, June 25, 2015
• Of Characterization and Common Sense: Court Holds That Erroneous Interpretation of Allegations of Complaint Doom Counterclaim to Bottom of Chicken Coop, June 30, 2014
• Major League Baseball's Antitrust “Exemption” Is Immune From Judicial Overrule, November 14, 2013
• Disfavored Purchaser Loses Robinson-Patman Act and Sherman Act Section 1 Claims Against Favored Buyer, August 19, 2013
• Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act Defeats Claim Against Holder Of Patent Incorporated Into Industry Standard, June 25, 2013
• California Court of Appeal Allows Injunction Under Unfair Competition Law To Prevent Horizontal Competitor From Diverting Business Through Unlawful Means, May 13, 2013
• Court Finds No Inference of Conspiracy Arising From Members of Standard Setting Organization Pursuing Self Interest In Refusing To Approve Plaintiff's Competing Technology, March 18, 2013
• Interlocutory Appeal From Denial Of Twombly Motion to Dismiss in Text Messaging Antitrust Litigation, May 24, 2011
• Ninth Circuit Finds That New Home Buyer Plaintiffs Fail To Satisfy Per Se Tying Element That Amount Of Commerce Not Be Insubstantial Zero Foreclosure Is Less Than 'De Minimus, ' September 3, 2009
• Antitrust Division's Top Economist Addresses Congress On The Newspaper Industry, June 12, 2009
• Is An Exclusive Dealing Contract An Unlawful Covenant Not To Compete? April 13, 2009
•California Antitrust & Unfair Competition Law - 5th Ed.