Leo Caseria

Leo Caseria is a partner in the Antitrust & Competition Practice Group in the Los Angeles office of Sheppard Mullin. 

Areas of Practice

Leo's practice focuses on advising companies on antitrust issues arising in connection with mergers, acquisitions, technology transactions, licensing agreements, and also in connection with civil litigation. He regularly advises companies regarding the requirements under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act, and has prepared numerous HSR filings. Leo has also represented clients before the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission in connection with government antitrust investigations.  He has also litigated a wide variety of antitrust cases in federal and state courts including price-fixing, market allocation, boycott, monopolization, and attempted monopolization cases. 

Leo serves as Co-Chair of the Books & Treatises Committee of the American Bar Association's Section of Antitrust Law. Leo frequently edits or contributes to the Section’s antitrust handbooks, and has also authored articles for SCOTUSblog and the New York Law Journal. 

• Antitrust, Legal 500, 2015, 2017
• Southern California Rising Star, Super Lawyers, 2018

Representative Engagements

• Defending CalPortland against False Claims Act claims premised on alleged conspiracy to fix prices and allocate markets relating to cement, concrete and asphalt.  All claims dismissed. U.S. ex rel. Rune Kraft v. CalPortland Construction, Case No. 16-4479 (C.D. Cal.) (Order and Statement of Decision dated March 9, 2018).
• Defending telescope manufacturer against Sherman Act Section 1 and 2 claims and Clayton Act Section 7 claims. All claims dismissed. Optronic Technologies, Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd., Case No. 16-6370 (N.D. Cal. Order dated Sept. 28, 2017).

• Representing Samsung in global patent and standards related antitrust matters.
• Defending The Reynolds and Reynolds Company against state and federal antitrust claims relating to data management system access. Sherman Act Section 2 claims and related state law claims dismissed. Motor Vehicle Software Corporation v. CDK Global, Inc., Case No. 17-896 (C.D. Cal. Order dated Oct. 2, 2017).
• Defended The Reynolds and Reynolds Company against claims relating to data management system access. Data Software Services, LLC v. The Reynolds and Reynolds Company, Case No. 17-1347 (C.D. Cal.)
• Defended Samsung SDI against price-fixing actions brought by Attorneys General of Illinois, Oregon and Washington. In Oregon, on a motion argued by Mr. Caseria, Samsung SDI obtained an order capping the State of Oregon’s potential antitrust civil penalties to a maximum of $2.5 million, subject to possible additional reductions, as opposed to the $375 million sought by the State. State of Oregon v. LG Electronics, Inc., Case No. 1208-10246 (County of Multnomah, Order dated Nov. 23, 2016).
• Defended Samsung SDI against price-fixing claims involving cathode ray tubes (CRT). In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., MDL. No. 1917 (N.D. Cal.)
• Defended Samsung SDI against multi-billion dollar price-fixing claim brought by Motorola. Claims dismissed just before trial. Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corporation, 09-cv-6610 (N.D. Ill.)
• Defended Samsung SDI against price-fixing claims involving thin film transistor liquid crystal display products. In re TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) Antitrust Litigation, MDL. No 1827 (N.D. Cal.)
• Represented Diamond Electric in international price-fixing investigation in the automotive sector.
• Defended Samsung Electronics against multi-billion dollar group boycott claim brought by Rambus under California’s Cartwright Act concerning a certain type of DRAM. Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology Inc., 04-0431105 (San Francisco Superior Court)
• Defended Samsung against federal and state antitrust claims brought by direct and indirect purchasers of SRAM alleging horizontal conspiracy to exchange information for the purpose of fixing prices. In re SRAM Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1819 (N.D. Cal.)
• Defended Live Nation and Clear Channel against Sherman Act § 2 monopolization claims brought by a purported class of purchasers of rock concert tickets. In re Live Concert Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1745 (C.D. Cal.)
• Defended Philip Morris against Sherman Act § 1 challenge to the $246 billion dollar Master Settlement Agreement between leading tobacco companies and 46 states. Contributed to successful U.S. Supreme Court brief in opposition to petition for certiorari following favorable ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Sanders v. Brown, 540 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2007).

• "Joint Conduct 101: Information Exchange," ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Joint Conduct Committee, October 20, 2016.

• Co-Chair, Books and Treatises Committee of the ABA Section of Antitrust Law (2016-2019)
• State Bar of California, Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section
• Vice Chair, Books and Treatises Committee of the ABA Section of Antitrust Law (2014-2015)