Federal Judge Dismisses Antitrust Lawyers’ Fee Demand Over JetBlue-Spirit Deal

Judge Young’s order explicitly stated that the request for fees was denied because the plaintiffs involved in the case were not considered “prevailing parties.” This decision followed the airlines’ abandonment of the merger in March, after Judge Young had previously sided with the U.S. Department of Justice in a separate government case. The DOJ’s challenge argued that the merger would be detrimental to consumers.

We’d love to be your preferred source for news.

Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!

Add as Preferred Source

The private lawyers who sought the fee reimbursement, including Joseph Alioto of the Alioto Law Firm in San Francisco, have not yet responded to requests for comment, as noted by Reuters. Similarly, representatives for JetBlue and Spirit Airlines were also unavailable for immediate comment. The airlines were defended by legal teams from Cooley and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. They had contested the fee request, claiming that the private lawyers were essentially leveraging the government’s case for their own financial gain.

Related: JetBlue and Spirit Airlines Push Back on Law Firms’ Bid for Legal Fees in Abandoned Merger Case

Following the airlines’ decision to drop the merger, the private lawsuit was dismissed as moot. The airlines highlighted this in their arguments against the fee request, asserting that the private attorneys neither tried the case nor achieved victory at summary judgment.

Alioto had previously indicated to Reuters that he believed the private lawsuit played a significant role in persuading the airlines to forgo an appeal in the government’s case. He also accused the airlines of attempting to undermine the federal laws that support private antitrust litigation by challenging the attorneys’ entitlement to legal fees.

Source: Reuters