Overview

Leo Caseria is Co-Chair of both the firm’s Antitrust and Competition Practice Group and Governmental Practice and a partner in the Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles offices.

Areas of Practice

Leo’s practice focuses on defending companies in complex antitrust litigation, and navigating clients through antitrust and HSR issues in M&A transactions. He has led and supervised the defense of antitrust litigation matters involving a wide variety of alleged conspiracies and monopolization, including through trial. He has also led and supervised everything from HSR filing through Second Request for merging parties.

Clients rely on Leo for practical, effective, and creative strategies, as well as his expertise with certain industries, including construction materials, multifamily, food & beverage, consumer electronics, software, and healthcare. Clients have commented to Chambers that Leo is their preferred antitrust counsel because his knowledge/expertise is “strong” and “tremendous.”

Leo’s litigation strategies have helped clients in multiple matters. Leo argued for and obtained a favorable summary judgment ruling for a defendant in an antitrust conspiracy case, eliminating a significant amount of potential liability. The key evidence came from a FOIA request to a state agency, which showed that plaintiff’s alleged injury in a particular state was not caused by defendants’ conduct.

In another example, a state attorney general sought $375 million in civil penalties from a defendant, arguing that its participation in a 12-year antitrust conspiracy involved hundreds of violations subject to separate penalties. Leo argued for and obtained a ruling that the state’s position was “manifestly unfair.” The court capped potential civil penalties at no more than $2.5 million.

Leo has particular expertise in antitrust issues relating to construction materials, including cement, concrete, asphalt, and aggregates. He has met with and presented to FTC Commissioners as well as DOJ Section Chiefs regarding construction materials antitrust issues. He currently represents a major cement producer in a price-fixing conspiracy case. In 2023, he successfully resolved a government price-fixing investigation on behalf of a ready-mixed concrete producer. He has helped parties close numerous deals involving construction materials, including CalPortland’s 2015 acquisition of a cement plant in CA from Martin Marietta; CalPortland’s 2022 acquisition of a cement plant in CA, cement terminals in CA, OR, NV, and AZ, and ready-mixed concrete plants in CA from Martin Marietta; Chaney Enterprises’ 2024 acquisition of aggregates and ready-mixed concrete assets from Chandler Concrete in NC, TN, VA, and WV; and CalPortland’s 2025 acquisition of aggregates and ready-mixed concrete assets in CA from Grimes Rock. Leo regularly provides antitrust compliance training, advice, and counseling to construction materials companies including CalPortland Company, Knife River, Chaney Enterprises, Builder’s Supply, and NRMCA.

Experience

Experience

Representative Engagements:

Litigation

  • Defending Realty One Group, Inc. against antitrust claims relating to alleged conspiracy to fix buyer broker commissions on residential real estate transactions. 
  • Defending Essex Property Trust (NYSE: ESS) against antitrust claims relating to alleged conspiracy to fix rental rates for multifamily apartment units. Competitors allegedly carried out the conspiracy using industry software and algorithm provided by RealPage. In re RealPage, Inc. Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (No. II), Case No. 23-3071 (M.D. Tenn.)
  • Defending Hartford HealthCare Corporation against monopolization claims brought by competitor Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center in federal court, and also against antitrust class actions in both state and federal court. Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center, Inc. v. Hartford HealthCare Corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00050-AVC (D. Conn.); John Brown et al. v. Hartford HealthCare Corp., Case No. HHD-CV22-6152239-S (Superior Court of the Judicial District of Hartford); Estuary Transit District and Teamsters 671 Health Service & Insurance Plan v. Hartford HealthCare Corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-01051 (D. Conn.)
  • Defending honey importer Export Packers Company Limited dba Odem International against an antitrust and RICO class action brought by a putative class of U.S. domestic beekeepers, relating to a purported conspiracy to sell foreign fake honey. All claims dismissed. Henry’s Bullfrog Bees v. Sunland Trading, Inc., Case No. 2:21-CV-00582-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal. Order dated Feb. 23, 2022).
  • Defended Cyient, Inc. against antitrust claims brought by a putative class of aerospace engineers alleging a “no-poach” conspiracy between employers not to hire from each other from 2011 to the present. Borozny et al. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, Pratt & Whitney Division, et al., Case No 3:21-cv-01657 (D. Conn.).
  • Defended The Reynolds and Reynolds Company against state and federal antitrust claims relating to data management system access. Monopolization and attempted monopolization claims dismissed at pleading stage. Motor Vehicle Software Corporation v. CDK Global, Inc., Case No. 17-896 (C.D. Cal. Order dated Oct. 2, 2017). Motion for summary judgment on conspiracy claims partially granted, eliminating majority of remaining potential liability. In re Dealer Management Systems Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 18-864 (N.D. Ill. Order dated Jun. 29, 2023).
  • Defending JRK Residential Group, Inc. against putative class action alleging price gouging of apartment rental rates in California following wildfire emergencies. Felker v. JRK Residential Group, Inc., Case No. SCV-267587 (Sonoma County Superior Court).
  • Representing cement producer CalPortland Company in antitrust case against four major railroads accused of allegedly price-fixing rate-based rail fuel surcharges. CalPortland Company v. BNSF Railway Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-03659 (C.D. Cal.).
  • Co-lead trial counsel for defendants in two-month antitrust trial in 2019 before Judge Edward Davila in case involving alleged price-fixing and market allocation claims relating to telescopes. Successfully obtained summary judgment on below-cost pricing and refusal to deal issues prior to trial. Optronic Technologies Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-06370 (N.D. Cal. Order dated Sept. 20, 2019).
  • Defended CalPortland Company against False Claims Act claims premised on alleged conspiracy to fix prices and allocate markets relating to cement, concrete and asphalt. All claims dismissed; affirmed by Ninth Circuit.  ex rel. Rune Kraft v. CalPortland Construction, Case No. 16-4479 (C.D. Cal. order dated Mar. 9, 2018), aff’d, Case No. 18-55594 (9th Cir. opinion dated Apr. 7, 2020).
  • Defended Save Mart against putative class action alleging price gouging of eggs in California. Plaintiff asserted a single claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200, predicated upon an alleged violation of California Penal Code section 396, which prohibits price gouging. Claim against Save Mart was voluntarily dismissed after Save Mart filed a motion to dismiss. Fraser v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., Case No. 20-2733 (N.D. Cal.).
  • Defended Amerifoods against putative class action alleging price gouging of eggs in California. Plaintiff asserted claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200, predicated upon an alleged violation of California Penal Code section 396, which prohibits price gouging. Claims against Amerifoods voluntarily dismissed. Elander v. Rose Acre Farms, Inc., Case No. 20STCV33673 (Los Angeles County Superior Court).

Merger Review

Conduct Investigations

  • 2022: Representing client in connection with confidential investigation by Washington attorney general relating to alleged antitrust conspiracy.
  • 2022: Representing third parties in connection with federal antitrust investigations concerning alleged anticompetitive conduct by technology companies.
  • 2022: Represented Smart & Final Stores, LLC and favorably resolved California attorney general investigation relating to alleged price gouging of eggs. People v. Smart & Final Stores, LLC, Case No. 22CIV01378 (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo).  https://www.law360.com/articles/1481365/grocery-chain-pays-175k-in-calif-s-covid-price-gouge-suit
  • 2020-2021: Represented several grocery store chains and favorably resolved confidential investigations by CA, NV, OR, and WA attorneys general, as well as local district attorneys, relating to alleged price gouging of eggs, water, toilet paper, and other food and grocery items.

Honors

Honors

  • Competition Future Leader, GCR Who’s Who Legal, 2021-2023
  • Next Generation Lawyers, Legal 500, 2019-2024
  • Antitrust, Legal 500, 2015, 2017, 2019-2024
  • Southern California Super Lawyer, Super Lawyers, 2021-2023
  • Southern California Rising Star, Super Lawyers, 2018-2020
  • Legal 500 Next Generation Partner 2024

Insights

Articles

Antitrust Law Blog Posts

Media Mentions

Speaking Engagements

  • “Antitrust…Opening the Gates,” National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association’s ConcreteWorks conference, Denver, Colorado, October 1, 2022
  • “Non-Competes and Non-Solicitation Clauses: What You Need to Know,” Association of Corporate Counsel New York chapter Annual Meeting, New York City, New York, September 21, 2022
  • “The Price is Right: Examining Antitrust and Pricing Issues in the Hospitality Industry,” Sheppard Mullin Webinar, May 25, 2021
  • "B2B Noncompetes and the Rule of Reason," Los Angeles County Bar Association Webinar, October 8, 2020
  • “Trending Legal Issues in the Retail Industry,” Sheppard Mullin Webinar, June 16, 2020

Events

Memberships

Memberships

  • Co-Chair, Books and Treatises Committee, ABA Section of Antitrust Law, 2016-2024

Digital Media

Education

J.D., Columbia Law School, 2005, Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar

B.A., University of California, Los Angeles, 2002

Admissions

  • California
  • District of Columbia
  • U.S. Court for the Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, Central District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
Jump to Page

By scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to browse our website, you consent to our use of cookies as described in our Cookie and Advertising Policy. If you do not wish to accept cookies from our website, or would like to stop cookies being stored on your device in the future, you can find out more and adjust your preferences here.