[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-503452-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-503452-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","united-states-district-court-district-of-new-jersey-opinion","United States District Court - District of New Jersey - Opinion","","Antitrust litigation arises from a labor dispute tied to trade show and convention work at the Atlantic City Convention Center. Defendants SMG and others move to strike the expert opinions of Dr. Phillip L. Harvey on labor-related issues, and the Court grants that motion for the reasons stated in the Opinion. The dispute traces to an agreement restricting subcontracting to employers lacking collective-bargaining agreements with the Carpenters, which AES alleges caused increased costs and lost profits.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/united-states-district-court-district-of-new-jersey-opinion/503452/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/united-states-district-court-district-of-new-jersey-opinion/503452.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"ahduag","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-09","2026-10-03",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What does the Court address in the Opinion?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The Court considers a Motion to Strike expert opinions on labor-related issues submitted by Dr. Phillip L. Harvey and grants the motion.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What is the origin of the dispute?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The dispute stems from a labor-related agreement affecting who can provide workers for trade show and convention setup and dismantling at the Atlantic City Convention Center.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What key legal issue frames the antitrust claim?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Whether the non-statutory labor exception to antitrust laws applies to the agreement.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},503452,1791307309,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":123,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},3985747870414,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","Case 1:00-cv-03465-JEI-JBR Document 60 Filed 10/05/05 Page 1 of 10 PageID: \u003CpageID>  \nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  \nDISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY  \nHOWARD CASPER,  \nPlaintiff,  \nv .  \nSMG,(formerly known as Spectator Management Group); ROBERT McCLINTOCK; and SOUTH JERSEY REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, LOCAL 623,  \nDefendants .  \nHONORABLE JOSEPH E . IRENAS  \nCIVIL ACTION NO . 00-3465  \n(JEI)  \nOPINION  \nAPPEARANCES:  \nSIDKOFF, PINCUS & GREEN, P .C .  \nBy: Gary Green, Esq .  \nChristopher D . Mannix, Esq .  \nCasey Green, Esq .  \n2700 Aramark Tower 1101 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19107  \nAttorneys for Plaintiff Howard Casper  \nFOX ROTHCHILD LLP  \nBy: James A . Mathews, III, Esq .  \nJessica L . Pollock, Esq .  \nKelly A . McGrady, Esq .  \n2000 Market Street 10th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103  \nAttorneys for Defendants SMG and Robert McClintock  \nJENNINGS SIGMOND, LLP  \nBy: Howard Simonoff, Esq .  \nJames Katz, Esq .  \n1040 North Kings Highway Suite 300  \nCherry Hill, NJ 08034  \nAttorneys for Defendant South Jersey Regional Council of Carpenters, Local 623  \nCase 1:00-cv-03465-JEI-JBR Document 60 Filed 10/05/05 Page 2 of 10 PageID: \u003CpageID>  \nIRENAS , Senior District Judge:  \nThis antitrust case arises out of a labor dispute involving trade show and convention work at the Atlantic City Convention Center . Presently before the Court is the Motion to Strike the Expert Opinions on Labor Related Issues of Dr . Phillip L . Harvey filed by Defendants SMG, Robert McClintock, and South Jersey Regional Council of Carpenters, Local 623 (collectively“Defendants”) . For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion .  \nI .  \nTo place the present motion in context, a brief discussion of the parties’ dispute is in order . Atlantic Exposition Services, Inc . (“AES”), Plaintiff Casper’s assignor and predecessor plaintiff in this case, was a contractor who provided workers to set up and dismantle temporary exhibits for trade shows at the Atlantic City Convention Center (“ACCC”) and other smaller venues in the Southern New Jersey area . Defendants SMG and McClintock, SMG’s employee in-charge, managed the ACCC .  \nSMG entered into an agreement 1 (“Agreement”) with Defendant  \n1  \nPlaintiff prefers the term “scheme” to agreement, arguing that the arrangement between SMG and the Carpenters was “not a real ‘labor agreement .’”(Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike (“Opp . Br .”) at p . 7 n . 14) The Court chooses to use “agreement” because the NLRB and the Third Circuit both used that term in their respective opinions addressing the same set of facts . The use of “agreement” in this opinion is not meant to indicate any decision on the merits of this case .  \nCase 1:00-cv-03465-JEI-JBR Document 60 Filed 10/05/05 Page 3 of 10 PageID: \u003CpageID>  \nSouth Jersey Regional Council of Carpenters, Local 623 (the  \n“Carpenters”) under which SMG would not subcontract work to employers, including AES, who did not have collective-bargaining agreements with the Carpenters . This agreement prevented AES from using the less expensive Painter’s union workers for jobs atthe ACCC, allegedly causing AES to “lose marketing advantage, to incur significantly increased labor costs and resulting lost  \nprofits.” ([Compl. at](Compl. at) ¶ 21)  \nAES attacked the Agreement in two different forums . First, AES filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) alleging that the Agreement was an unfair labor practice which violated Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act . In a written opinion, Administrative Law Judge Schlesinger held that the Agreement violated Section 8(e) . That holding was affirmed by the NLRB2 and the Third Circuit,3 although only the findings essential to the holding were affirmed .  \nAES now attacks the Agreement in this Court as a violation of the Sherman Act .4 Although this Court has not yet had the opportunity to address Plaintiff’s antitrust claim on the merits, all parties appear to agree ","cbCaibspMOhjrg9S","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaibspMOhjrg9S","pdf",190102,"English","# Motion to Strike Expert Opinions\n## Parties and Background of the Labor Dispute\n## Legal Context and Antitrust Issue\n## Expert Qualifications and Scope of Opinion","[{\"question\":\"What does the Court address in the Opinion?\",\"answer\":\"The Court considers a Motion to Strike expert opinions on labor-related issues submitted by Dr. Phillip L. Harvey and grants the motion.\"},{\"question\":\"What is the origin of the dispute?\",\"answer\":\"The dispute stems from a labor-related agreement affecting who can provide workers for trade show and convention setup and dismantling at the Atlantic City Convention Center.\"},{\"question\":\"What key legal issue frames the antitrust claim?\",\"answer\":\"Whether the non-statutory labor exception to antitrust laws applies to the agreement.\"}]","United States District Court - District of New Jersey - Opinion | PDF",1791056393,25]