08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain
08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain 08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT MEDICAL SUPPLY CHAIN, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, US BANCORP, NA; US BANK PRIVATE CLIENT GROUP; CORPORATE TRUST; INSTITUTIONAL TRUST AND CUSTODY; MUTUAL FUND SERVICES, LLC.; PIPER JAFFRAY; ANDREW CESERE; SUSAN PAINE; LARS ANDERSON; BRIAN KABBES; UNKNOWN HEALTHCARE SUPPLIER, Defendants-Appellees. ANSWER TO SHOW CAUSE ON SANCTIONS At the close of the US Senate Judiciary Committee's Antitrust Subcommittee's hearing entitled “Hospital Group Purchasing: How to Maintain Innovation and Cost Savings” on Tuesday, September 14, 2004, the subcommittee's chair suggested that the 1.8 trillion dollar market's anticompetitive behavior might be better corrected with private antitrust litigation than with new legislation. The plaintiff-appellant Medical Supply Chain, Inc. believes the Sherman Act prohibits the admitted conduct of the defendants in keeping Medical Supply Chain, Inc. from competing with the defendants’ openly publicized combination to restrain trade in hospital 1 Exb 18 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5955
supplies which included the threat of malicious USA PATRIOT Act reporting and the repudiation of the defendants’ contract to provide Medical Supply Chain, Inc. escrow accounts required for capitalizing its market entry. Plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel continue to recognize and assert that the district court erred by: 1) dismissing plaintiff’s antitrust claims by imposing a heightened pleading standard, and 2) finding no private right of action under the USA Patriot Act. Plaintiff filed this appeal that is supported by the law and the facts. Plaintiff incorporates by reference plaintiff’s appellate opening and reply briefs along with the supporting record contained in the appendices for docket # 03-3342 and docket # 02-3443 including the evidentiary attachments of both parties in support of their motions for pre-hearing relief. The defendant U.S. Bank was in contract with Medical Supply Chain, Inc. to provide escrow accounts. U.S. Bank broke the contract, Medical Supply Chain, Inc.’s complaint (written shortly after to obtain emergency injunctive relief and avoid the resulting irreparable harm 1 ) alleged the 1 The defendant US Bancorp Piper Jaffray’s adverse admission of economic research reveals that a web based electronic marketplace for hospital supplies like Medical Supply Chain, Inc. would eliminate 83 billion dollars in inefficiency. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint 27. 2 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5956
- Page 329 and 330: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 331 and 332: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 333 and 334: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 335 and 336: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
- Page 337 and 338: Dated this 24th day of October, 200
- Page 339 and 340: lack of health insurance and the co
- Page 341 and 342: Washington, DC 20004-1206 John K. P
- Page 343 and 344: United States Court of Appeals for
- Page 345 and 346: “Defendant's second allegation is
- Page 347 and 348: 3. The defendants were not parties
- Page 349 and 350: tie-in sales and other means of exp
- Page 351 and 352: judicata grounds. The court noted,
- Page 353 and 354: Id pg. 328. d. Identity of claims U
- Page 355 and 356: Heard v. Board of Pub. Util. of Kan
- Page 357 and 358: The hospital supply competitors VHA
- Page 359 and 360: 56 states: “By 8/21/04 The NY Tim
- Page 361 and 362: 506 (2002); Crawford-El v. Britton,
- Page 363 and 364: The burden to state a claim for int
- Page 365 and 366: 502 states: “Defendants through t
- Page 367 and 368: the conspiracy, agreed to commit pr
- Page 369 and 370: enterprise." Mason Tenders District
- Page 371 and 372: “Section 315 of the Patriot Act a
- Page 373 and 374: saml@medicalsupplychain.com Pro se
- Page 375 and 376: !"#$%&"'()&$*'+,$&-(%'()!('()&.'/01
- Page 377 and 378: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILE
- Page 379: in ensuring that the claims he brin
- Page 383 and 384: Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law
- Page 385 and 386: Certificate of Service I certify I
- Page 387 and 388: ! "#!$%&!'()&*+,-(&)#!).!%&*&/0!1&*
- Page 389 and 390: ###################################
- Page 391 and 392: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 393 and 394: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 395 and 396: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 397 and 398: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS<br />
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT<br />
MEDICAL SUPPLY CHAIN, INC.,<br />
v.<br />
Plaintiff-Appellant,<br />
US BANCORP, NA; US BANK PRIVATE CLIENT GROUP;<br />
CORPORATE TRUST; INSTITUTIONAL TRUST AND CUSTODY;<br />
MUTUAL FUND SERVICES, LLC.; PIPER JAFFRAY; ANDREW<br />
CESERE; SUSAN PAINE; LARS ANDERSON; BRIAN KABBES;<br />
UNKNOWN HEALTHCARE SUPPLIER,<br />
Defendants-Appellees.<br />
ANSWER TO SHOW CAUSE ON SANCTIONS<br />
At the close of the US Senate Judiciary Committee's Antitrust<br />
Subcommittee's hearing entitled “Hospital Group Purchasing: How to<br />
Maintain Innovation and Cost Savings” on Tuesday, September 14, 2004,<br />
the subcommittee's chair suggested that the 1.8 trillion dollar market's anticompetitive<br />
behavior might be better corrected with private antitrust<br />
litigation than with new legislation. The plaintiff-appellant <strong>Medical</strong> <strong>Supply</strong><br />
<strong>Chain</strong>, Inc. believes the Sherman Act prohibits the admitted conduct of the<br />
defendants in keeping <strong>Medical</strong> <strong>Supply</strong> <strong>Chain</strong>, Inc. from competing with the<br />
defendants’ openly publicized combination to restrain trade in hospital<br />
1<br />
Exb 18<br />
<strong>08</strong>-<strong>3187</strong> <strong>Medical</strong> <strong>Supply</strong> <strong>Chain</strong> vs. Neoforma <strong>Volume</strong> XV 5955
Change language