Jeffrey Shohet practices in the areas of antitrust and complex business litigation. He is listed in The Best Lawyers in America and recognized as a Southern California Super Lawyer for his significant accomplishments in those practice specialties. He is the only attorney listed in The Best Lawyers in San Diego in the antitrust category.

The firm's Antitrust practice group, of which Mr. Shohet is a member, was recently named as one of the Top 10 Antitrust Litigation practices by Martindale-Hubbell®, according to the total number of antitrust cases in which the firm has represented clients in US Federal District Courts during the past two years.

Mr. Shohet served as lead trial counsel in Spectrum Sports v. McQuillan, which was appealed to the United State Supreme Court and resulted in a landmark decision on attempt to monopolize. Mr. Shohet argued the case for respondent. The recording of Mr. Shohet's oral argument before the Court may be found here. In 2008, the San Diego Lawyer recognized his work on this case in an article entitled "Supreme Confidence," noting that the previous time the Court had granted review on this issue was in 1905.

In addition to his work in the courtroom, Mr. Shohet represents and counsels clients on a variety of antitrust matters, including merger transactions, pricing and distribution issues, ventures, licensing and intellectual property matters and government investigations. Mr. Shohet regularly conducts antitrust compliance and audit programs for clients.

Mr. Shohet has served in a leadership role in a variety of practice-related organizations. During his term as vice-chair of the antitrust section of the California bar association, he served as editor and co-author of California Antitrust Law, a leading treatise on state antitrust law. He has also published articles and spoken at numerous seminars and regularly appears on television and radio discussing antitrust issues of national interest. Mr. Shohet's comments on prominent antitrust issues have appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Seattle Times and other publications on issues of public interest in the antitrust area. He has been named a San Diego Super Lawyer.

Representative Matters

• In re California Energy Antitrust Litigation: Representation of one of the five wholesale suppliers of electricity to the California market in several antitrust cases arising from what has been described as the California electricity crises. The representation included private Sherman and Cartwright Act cases, government investigations and regulatory proceedings.
• In re: Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1819: Representation of manufacturer of SRAM chips and related products in multi-district litigation alleging industry wide price fixing agreements in violation of the Sherman Act and Cartwright Act.
• Seagate-Maxtor Merger: Counsel to Maxtor Corporation for the antitrust work in connection with its acquisition by Seagate. This transaction involved a combination of two of the top five worldwide hard disk drive suppliers and required antitrust clearance proceedings around the world.
• Websense—SurfControl Merger: Counsel to SurfControl for the antitrust work in connection with its acquisition by Websense.
• Rambus v. Infineon; Micron v. Rambus: Representation of Rambus as antitrust counsel on a series of complex, high Profile patent infringement cases involving Walker Process and Dell counterclaims.
• Allstate Vision Plans v. California Vision Service: Representation of a Knox-Keene licensee and its affiliated frame and lens lab in a Sherman Act dispute with the largest vision care plan in the United States and the California Optometric Association. The case involved claims of monopolization and price fixing in connection with defendants' control of pricing of optometric services in the state of California.
• Spectrum Sports v. McQuillan: Representation of distributor in a Sherman Act case against the manufacturer and its parent company. The case was tried to a jury and resulted in a verdict of $8.3 million, including interest and attorneys' fees. Defendants appealed and the verdict was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. Certiorari was granted by the United States Supreme Court on the attempt to monopolize claim to review the Ninth Circuit's unique "Lessig" rule. Mr. Shohet argued the case to the Supreme Court.
• Lawrence v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company: Representation of Du Pont in defense of a lawsuit alleging price fixing of medical x-ray film on behalf of a class of purported indirect purchasers of such film in violation of the Cartwright Act.
• 49er Chevrolet v. General Motors Corporation: Defense of a supplier to General Motors who was sued as a co-defendant with General Motors by a group of dealers alleging an unlawful tyie-in and other violations of the Sherman Act. Case was successfully resolved on motion for summary judgment.
• Brooks v. San Diego Academy of Ophthalmology: Defense of Sherman Act claims arising from allegations of collusion between physicians to boycott a competitor.
• Time Warner Cable, a division of Time Warner Entertainment/Advance Newhouse Partnership: Representation of the San Diego division of Time Warner Cable in an action originally commenced as a government investigation and later as a consumer class action involving late fee charges.
• East County Physicians Medical Group v. Aetna Health Plans: Representation of Aetna Health Plans in defense of antitrust claims involving an alleged conspiracy with a preferred provider to boycott one of its competitors. We successfully defended the case on summary judgment.
• BizJet International v. AlliedSignal, et al.: This was an aftermarket case in which we defended factory-authorized jet aircraft service centers against Sherman Act sections 1 and 2, and Robinson-Patman Act claims asserted on behalf of independent service centers.
• Cal Cel v. GTE Mobilnet of San Diego Inc., et al: Representation of AT&T and its affiliate AT&T Wireless in a Cartwright Act/Unfair Trade Practices Act case involving the cellular telephone services and equipment market.
• King Colour Printing v. Encad:Aftermarket case alleging a tie-in and monopolization by a printer manufacturer of its aftermarket for ink and ink cartridges.
• Freeman v. Lasky, Hass & Cohler: Representation of California Association of Realtors and its counsel in the successful defense of Sherman Act claims arising from conduct in the defense of a related Sherman Act case. The case resulted in an important published decision of the Ninth Circuit relating to the scope of Noerr Pennington protection to conduct occurring in the course of litigation.
• Bahl v. Metabolife Corporation: Representation of Metabolife in a resale price maintenance case alleging unlawful advertising restrictions (MAPS).

ADMISSIONS

• California
• Texas

Publications

Mr. Shohet has authored an article on the Ninth Circuit rule in attempt to monopolize cases published in Competition, a publication of the antitrust section of the California Bar Association.

Mr. Shohet authored an article published in the National Law Journal in June 1998, relating to the Microsoft enforcement action by the Department of Justice, and an article published in Legal Times in March 1999, regarding Eastman Kodak Co. v Image Technical Services Inc.