Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Notice: This Summary Order May Not Be Cited As Precedential Authority, but May Be Called to the Attention of the Court in a Subsequent Stage of This Case, in a Related Case, or in Any Case for Purposes of Collateral Estoppel or Res Judicata. See Second Circuit Rule 0.23.a. Aiudi & Sons, Elmo R. Aiudi, Alpha Latomia, Inc., Andmeadow Haven, Inc. Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Tilcon Connecticut Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Tilconinc., a Delaware Corporation; Tomasso Brothers,inc., a Connecticut Corporation; Johndoe, Defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 107 F.3d 2
Jan. 17, 1997
APPEARING FOR APPELLANTS: DOMINIC J. APRILE BATHGATE, WEGENER & WOLF, P.C. LAKEWOOD, NEW JERSEY
APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: JOHN R. FORNACIARI ROSS & HARDIES WASHINGTON, D.C.
Before WALKER, MCLAUGHLIN and CUDAHY,* Circuit Judges.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Covello, J.), and was argued.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of said district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
A. Aiudi & Sons, Elmo R. Aiudi, Alpha Latomia, Inc., and Meadow Haven, Inc. appeal from the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommended ruling, and dismissing plaintiffs' complaint on the grounds, inter alia, that it fails to state claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1,2, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, et seq. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge Martinez's Recommended Ruling, 94 Civ. 1895 (D.Conn. Sept. 22, 1995) (AVC)(DFM) and by Judge Covello in his Order Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Ruling, 94 Civ. 1895(AVC) (D.Conn. Mar. 31, 1996).