2nd Amended Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Case No. 0:10-cv-04945 PJS/FLN _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Steven E. Uhr,

Plaintiff, SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT v.

Responsible Hospitality Institute, Inc., Jim Peters, Diageo North America, Inc., Gary Zizka, American Beverage Licensees, Inc., John D. Bodnivich, Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, Inc., Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America, Inc., National Beer Wholesalers Association, International Downtown Association, Applebee’s International, Inc., Famous Dave’s of America, Inc., Brinker Restaurant Corporation, Luby’s Fuddruckers Restaurant, LLC, Richard Lyshek, Rick Petri, Jay Wanserski, Prudential Financial, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Richard A. Yoast, James F. Mosher, and Robert H. Bruininks Defendants. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Steven E. Uhr resides in Edina, Minnesota.

2. Defendant Responsible Hospitality Institute, Inc. (“RHI”) is a

private/public non-profit organization headquartered in Santa Cruz, California.

3. Defendant Jim Peters is the president of RHI.

4. Defendant Diageo North America, Inc. (“Diageo”) is a subsidiary of

Diageo plc, the world’s largest producer of beer, wine, and distilled spirits.

CASE 0:10-cv-04945-PJS-TNL Document 136 Filed 03/30/11 of 21

2

Diageo plc is also a retailer of alcohol beverages. Diageo is headquartered in

Norwalk, Connecticut and has an office in St. Paul, Minnesota. Diageo is on the

board of RHI and is an underwriter of RHI activities.

5. Defendant Gary Zizka is Diageo’s Vice President of Public Policy.

He represents Diageo on RHI’s board.

6. Defendant American Beverage Licensees, Inc. (“ABL”) is a national

trade association of off-premise and on-premise alcohol retailers, with over 20,000

members, including many in Minnesota. ABL is based in Bethesda, Maryland.

ABL is on the board of RHI.

7. Defendant John D. Bodnivich is the executive director of ABL. He

represents ABL on the RHI board.

8. Defendant Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, Inc.

(“DISCUS”) is the national trade association representing America’s leading

distillers. DISCUS is based in Washington. D.C. DISCUS is on the board of RHI

and is an underwriter of RHI activities. Diageo is on the board of DISCUS.

9. Defendant Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America, Inc.

(“WSWA”) is the national trade association representing the wholesale tier of the

wine and spirits industry. WSWA is based in Washington, D.C. WSWA is on the

board of RHI and is an underwriter of RHI activities. Its members include

Minnesota wine and spirits distributors.

10. Defendant National Beer Wholesalers Association (“NBWA”) is the

national trade association representing the wholesale tier of the beer industry,


3

including Minnesota wholesalers. NBWA is based in Alexandria, Virginia.

NBWA is on the board of RHI and is an underwriter of RHI activities.

11. Defendant International Downtown Association (“IDA”) is an

association of over 600 community business trade associations worldwide,

including some based in Minnesota. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C. IDA

is on the board of RHI.

12. Defendant Applebee’s International, Inc. (“Applebee’s”) has its

principal place of business in Lenexa, Kansas. Applebee’s owns the Applebee’s

brand and owns approximately twenty Applebee’s restaurants in the Minneapolis-

St. Paul metropolitan statistical area (“twin cities”).

13. Defendant Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. (“Famous Dave’s”) is a

Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business in Minnetonka,

Minnesota. Famous Dave’s owns the Famous Dave’s brand and owns

approximately fifteen Famous Dave’s restaurants in the twin cities.

14. Defendant Brinker Restaurant Corporation (“Brinker”) is a Delaware

corporation and the owner of approximately ten Chili’s restaurants in the twin

cities. Brinker is based in Dallas, Texas.

15. Defendant Luby’s Fuddruckers Restaurants, LLC (“Fuddruckers”) is

the owner of the Fuddruckers brand and owns the Fuddruckers located in the twin

cities. Fuddruckers is based in Houston, Texas.

16. Defendant Richard Lyshek is an attorney in Madison, Wisconsin and

the former owner of “Bull Feathers” bar in Madison.


4

17. Defendant Rick Petri is an attorney in Madison, Wisconsin who

represents licensed establishments. Prior to that, Petri was an Assistant City

Attorney in Madison.

18. Defendant Jay Wanserski is the owner of Wando’s bar in Madison,

Wisconsin.

19. Defendant Prudential Financial, Inc. (“Prudential”) is a financial

services institution based in Newark, New Jersey. Prudential has an office at 4538

Cass Street in San Diego (“Prudential San Diego”). Prudential has numerous

offices in Minnesota.

20. Defendant Citibank, N.A., (“Citibank”) is a full-service bank based

in New York City. Citibank has an office at 1910 Garnet Avenue in San Diego

(“Citibank San Diego”). Citibank does business at numerous locations in

Minnesota.

21. Defendant Richard A. Yoast until recently was the head of alcohol

policy at the American Medical Association.

22. Defendant James F. Mosher is an attorney and the president of

Alcohol Policy Consultations. Mosher has worked with Yoast in developing

alcohol policy at the American Medical Association. Mosher is based in Felton,

California.

23. Defendant Robert H. Bruininks is the President of the University of

Minnesota. He is being sued in a representative capacity for injunctive relief only.


5

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

24. In 1983 defendant RHI was formed. Defendant Peters has been the

president of RHI since then. RHI provides assistance and resources to organize

and sustain price-fixing agreements on retail alcohol sales in communities

throughout the United States and in Canada. This work is conducted under the

label “responsible beverage service” and “responsible hospitality.”

25. RHI contracts with community business trade associations and

others to: (a) access the community with respect to alcohol issues, (b) facilitate an

agreement among local hospitality businesses to limit drink discounts and

promotions, and (c) assist in implementing a program to monitor, enforce, and

sustain the agreement.

26. RHI has numerous seminars, conferences, summits, forums, and

webinars and other events throughout the year at which it provides “community

leaders” and owners and managers of licensed establishments various tools and

instruction on price-fixing methods and strategies.

27. RHI’s slogan is “innovative, collaborative and inclusive.” Its home

page states that:

The Responsible Hospitality Institute (RHI) assists businesses and communities create safe and vibrant places to socialize.

RHI provides technical assistance that builds local capacity, incubates and shares cutting-edge information and proven strategies, and links a broad-based network of professionals who plan, manage and police dining and entertainment districts.


6

28. RHI publishes “Planning, Managing, and Policing Hospitality

Zones: A Practical Guide.” RHI’s website describes the guide as follows:

Designed for real-life application and practical use, RHI's premier publication is a compilation of tactics and promising practices that address a full range of nightlife district challenges. Planning, Managing and Policing Hospitality Zones: A Practical Guide showcases innovative approaches, strategies, model policies and case studies from cities throughout North America.

This publication is a valuable resource for elected officials, downtown development organizations, law enforcement and regulatory agencies, colleges, dining and entertainment businesses, and neighborhood organizations seeking tools to enhance both safety and vibrancy in the nighttime economy.

This publications is also designed and intended to facilitate the implementation of

price-fixing agreements.

29. RHI also publishes a directory of “organizations, associations and

educational institutions that focus on the multifaceted priorities of hospitality,

safety, development, community and entertainment stakeholder.” This

publications is also designed and intended to facilitate the implementation of

price-fixing agreements.

30. Defendant Diageo is the primary sponsor of RHI’s “sociable city”

forums and other RHI events held throughout the United States designed and

intended to further the charged conspiracy. Defendant Zizka is a regular

participant at RHI’s sociable city forums, at which he provides instruction on the

operation and strategies of the conspiracy. Diageo shares in the proceeds of the

charged conspiracy.


7

31. Defendant Mosher presented at RHI conferences at least as recently

as 2008.

32. In or around 1983-1984 Peters wrote a series of articles in trade

magazines urging licensed establishments to stop serving discounted drinks.

33. In or around 1989 a conspiracy training/recruitment video titled

“Responsible Beverage Service” was produced in California by Defendants Peters

and Mosher among others. In the video Peters and Mosher discuss the steps that a

community should take to implement and sustain a responsible beverage service

program.

34. The RBS video was distributed to bar owners and managers

throughout the United States.

35. According to the video, RBS is built on the premise that

“community interests” must take the lead in “setting standards” for alcohol

service, and then must “work together with the hospitality industry to ensure that

the standards are met.” The referenced standards include price restrictions.

36. According to the video, the initial step in establishing an RBS

program is an assessment of the specific community with respect to alcohol-

related issues. Such an assessment includes a study of past incidents and

controversies involving alcohol, identification of groups active or potentially

active in the area, identification of the potential leadership within the community,

and a study of the extent to which the hospitality industry is organized and

hospitality businesses talk to one another. Such an assessment helps determine


8

appropriate goals and the best strategy for introducing an RBS program in the

particular community.

37. The video instructs that public awareness and concern be created by

publicizing a recent alcohol-related tragedy. The goal is to create an atmosphere in

which the issue of alcohol service and use becomes a priority, thus establishing a

“favorable climate for change.”

38. The video instructs that once an assessment has been made, the issue

of alcohol service has been established as an issue of public concern, and

community members have reached agreement on community-wide standards,

including price restrictions, then a training program for hospitality owners and

managers should begin.

39. According to the video, the mere introduction of an RBS program in

a particular community does not ensure success. The goal is to make responsible

beverage service a “permanent part of community life.” This requires a system to

monitor the local hospitality industry to ensure that the established community

standards are being met.

40. In 1994 RHI sponsored a Symposium on Responsible Hospitality

that resulted in a 54-page report discussing past and future strategies of the

conspiracy. The symposium report is found at on RHI’s website at

http://www.rhiweb.org/resources/reports/1994-final-rev.pdf.

41. Among the invited attendees were representatives of RHI, Diageo,

DISCUS, WSWA, and the predecessor entities of ABL.


9

42. The preface to the report outlines the objective of the symposium:

Hospitality is a wheel that drives community life. The hospitality industry is one of many community institutions composing the spokes of the wheel. It is the merging of all interests that creates a hub and gives the community its strength. The Responsible Hospitality Institute is a public, private and non-profit sector association dedicated to fostering responsible hospitality principles and practices, especially the responsible sales and service of beer, wine and distilled spirits. Evolving from the planning committee of the 1994 Symposium on Responsible Hospitality, RHi’s primary goal is to provide the opportunity for organizations and individuals from diverse perspectives to focus on areas of agreement and develop strategies to promote responsible hospitality. The solution seekers composing the RHI represent national, state and local trade and professional associations, government agencies, community organizations and related associations wanting to serve as a model of cooperation. The primary objective is to create a mechanism to facilitate ongoing communication and collaboration. Setting aside past differences, focusing on common problems and realizing that there will not always be consensus, the Partnership will dedicate its first year to building a North American communication network and developing resource materials for state and local groups. If you would like to learn more or contact a spokesperson in your area, please write [RHI].

43. The symposium resulted in a list of significant statements, points of

disagreements, process challenges, and future strategies in seven areas: “Knowing

your ABCs,” Hospitality and Community Policing, Finding the Right Balance,”

“Responsible Beverage Service,” “When, Why, and How,” “Underage?,” and

“The New Trade Association.”

44. At a conference sponsored by RHI in Burlington, Vermont in

October 2005, RHI personnel told attendees that:


10

Price competition in the hospitality industry has different consequences than the retail industry, which for the most part are not positive. Drink specials often indicate an establishment that is in trouble, and, have the adverse effect of over indulgence. Collaboration between owners will help to discourage this type of price war. Community covenants can be created to discourage this type of marketing practice.

See Exhibit 1 at 4. This memo is available under the “tools” section of the RHI

website.

45. In 2005 Defendant ABL sent a memo to its members in Minnesota

and elsewhere recommending its members agree to a set of “integrated

responsibility initiatives,” which included the reduction of promotions and drink

specials.

46. In December 2006, RHI held its “2020 Vision Leadership Summit”

at the Palmer House Hilton in Chicago, designed and intended to advance the

charged conspiracy. Attendees included teams from 12 U.S. and Canadian cities,

representing hospitality, safety, development, and residential perspectives.

According to Defendant Zizka, a speaker at the summit, the summit was designed

to facilitate cooperation and consensus-building among key stakeholders to

maximize economic, employment and social benefits.

47. RHI and others have worked to establish community-based

“responsible hospitality councils” as cover for price-fixing activity. Over twenty

bars, including Defendant Applebee’s, are members of such a council in East

Lansing Michigan, and they have reached agreements to limit the offering of drink

discounts.


11

48. RHI has facilitated efforts to form and maintain price-fixing

agreements in dozens of communities in the United States and Canada. Among

them are the twin cities, Madison, Wisconsin, San Diego, Hollywood, California,

Breckenridge, Colorado and Milwaukee.

Minneapolis/St. Paul.

49. The twin cities price-fixing was conducted in part through the

“alcohol risk management” (“ARM”) program. ARM is a manager/owner training

program that advocates that licensed establishments agree to adopt certain written

policies, including the elimination of drink discounts and promotions such as

“happy hours.”

50. Attorneys, hospitality businesses, and insurance agents were

involved in the development of the ARM program. All ARM trainers had work

experience in the hospitality industry.

51. The ARM program was administered through the Alcohol

Epidemiology Program (“AEP”) within the University of Minnesota’s School of

Public Health. The University posts ARM policies on its website. The University

has obtained millions of dollars in retail alcohol sales during the course of the

ARM Program.

52. The ARM program was funded in part by a grant from the Robert

Wood Johnson Foundation (“RWJF”), which is based in Princeton, New Jersey.


12

53. Approximately 230 licensed establishments in the twin cities agreed

to participate in ARM training. The University sent ARM recruiting packets to

those establishments through the United States mail.

54. Defendants Mosher and Peters consulted on the development,

implementation, and evaluation of the ARM program. Both of them have traveled

to the twin cities to consult on the ARM Program, and have also consulted on

ARM through interstate phone and email communications.

55. A conspiracy training/recruitment video titled “ARM Yourself with

Information” was produced in Minneapolis in 1997. The video was shown to

owners and managers of hospitality businesses. The video advocates that licensed

establishments agree to restrictions on drink promotions such as happy hours, all-

you-can-drink specials, 2-for-1s, pitchers, and promotions that target specific

groups of individuals, such as ladies’ night. Attorneys and representatives of the

insurance industry and the hospitality industry appear in the video advocating that

licensed establishments adopt the written ARM policies.

56. Applebee’s, Chili’s, Famous Dave’s, and Fuddruckers are identified

in ARM documents as participants in the ARM program. Applebee’s, Chili’s,

Famous Dave’s, and Fuddruckers agreed to and, upon information and belief, did

eliminate or reduce the offering of drink discounts as a result of their involvement

in ARM. The manager’s of Applebee’s, Chili’s, Famous Dave’s, and the

predecessor of Fuddrucker’s who participated in ARM knew and understood that

ARM was cover for price-fixing activity.


13

57. ARM participants engaged in communications with one another to

discuss their price-fixing activity.

58. In 2008 the University of Minnesota published a research article

evaluating the ARM program.

59. Many licensed establishments in the twin cities still follow and abide

by the ARM pricing restrictions.

Madison

60. In September 2002 approximately two dozen licensed establishments

near the University of Wisconsin campus issued a press release stating that “we as

a group, have agreed that we will voluntarily and immediately end all drink

specials on Fridays and Saturday nights after 8 P.M. in our establishments.”

(Emphasis in original). A second press release, drafted by defendant Lyshek,

states that “we have our reservations about engaging in what could be considered

illegal ‘collusion in restraint of trade,’ but we feel this proactive position can cut

through the fog and confusion surrounding the role of drink specials and

disorderly conduct.” The two press releases are attached as Exhibits 2-3.

61. Defendant Wanserski’s establishment, Wando’s Bar & Grill, and

defendant Lyshek’s former establishment, Bull Feathers, Inc., were “fully

confirmed” participants in the above-referenced price-fixing agreement.

62. Defendant Petri was involved in organizing and implementing the

above-referenced agreement.


14

63. Prior, in and around March 2002, Petri facilitated a meeting among

licensed establishments near Camp Randall for the purpose of reaching an

unlawful agreement to limit beer output at beer tents during University of

Wisconsin home football games. See Exhibit 4.

64. During the relevant time period defendants Lyshek, Wanserski, and

Petri knew and understood that it was illegal for licensed establishments to agree

with one another to eliminate or reduce the offering of drink promotions or to

otherwise agree to reduce output on retail alcohol sales. All three pretended in

public that such conduct was lawful.

65. The University of Wisconsin facilitated the formation of the above

agreement, and assisted in monitoring the agreement to discourage cheating. The

University also agreed with the local tavern industry that it would not sell beer at

the Memorial Union for less than prevailing market prices.

66. The University’s efforts to facilitate collusion among licensed

establishments were funded by a grant from RWJF. The RWJF grant was part of

the A Matter of Degree (“AMOD”) grant program, which began in 1996 and

operated at ten universities.

67. The AMOD program was administered by defendant Richard Yoast

at the American Medical Association. Yoast directed the AMOD schools to

facilitate cooperation and agreement among hospitality businesses to eliminate

drink specials and promotions.


15

68. Yoast traveled to Madison in September 2002 shortly prior to the

announcement of the “voluntary ban” on drink specials and, upon information and

belief, consulted with university personnel and bar owners about the agreement.

69. Defendant Petri was then and is today a member of a RWJF

subcommittee concerning alcohol policy.

70. In 2008, RHI entered into a contract with defendant Downtown

Madison, Inc. (“DMI”), a community business trade association and member of

defendant IDA, to provide its services in Madison. Defendant Petri was then and

is now a member of the board of DMI.

71. RHI conducted an assessment of the hospitality industry in

downtown Madison. One of its recommendations was that licensed

establishments enter into marketing covenants to control drink specials.

72. Defendants Lyshek, Petri, and Wanserski participated in RHI’s

“roundtable” meetings and other RHI organized meetings and events. All three

knew and understood that RHI was working in Madison to facilitate price-fixing

activity.

73. Defendant NBWA was involved in monitoring licensed

establishments in Madison to deter and prevent cheating from the conspiracy.

Upon information and belief, WSWA has also been involved in monitoring

licensed establishments in Madison and elsewhere to ensure compliance with the

conspiracy.


16

San Diego

74. In or around August 2006, approximately thirty licensed

establishments in the San Diego community of Pacific Beach agreed with one

another to “refrain from advertising two for one drink specials or prices below two

dollars for any alcoholic beverage sold in our establishments.” See Exhibit 5.

75. The agreement was announced at a press conference. The San

Diego Chief of Police and a city alderman attended the press conference.

76. The 2006 agreement replaced an earlier “community covenant”

among Pacific Beach licensed establishments entered into in or around 1996. That

agreement provided that the participants would refrain from offering certain drink

promotions.

77. The 2006 price-fixing agreement was organized and facilitated by

Discover Pacific Beach (“DPB”), a community business trade association.

Defendants Mosher and RHI were also involved in facilitating the formation of the

agreement and monitoring its operation.

78. RHI staff member Marion Novak said the following about the 2006

agreement: “Businesses make more money because they are not selling alcohol at

a loss. And if all the bars do it they remain competitive.” Ms. Novak also worked

as a consultant on the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s AMOD grant program.

Ms. Novak also was an attendee at RHI’s 1994 Responsible Hospitality

Symposium.


17

79. Steve Zolezzi, the president and CEO of the San Diego Food and

Beverage Association, was involved in facilitating the formation and operation of

the Pacific Beach price fixing agreement. Zolezzi is a former treasurer of RHI

and is a regular speaker at RHI events around the country.

80. Jaime Pursley, a manager at Citibank San Diego, was on the board

of DPB at the time the 2006 price-fixing agreement was announced. He

represented the interest of Citibank on the DPB board. He was aware of and

supported the agreement. Citibank benefited financially from the charged

conspiracy.

81. Mike McNeill, a manager at Prudential San Diego, was on the

Board of DPB at the time the 2006 price-fixing agreement was announced. He

represented the interest of Prudential on the DPB board. He was aware of and

supported the agreement. Prudential benefitted financially from the charged

conspiracy.

Milwaukee

82. Pursuant to the charged conspiracy, in or around 1995 eighteen

grocers and convenience stores on Milwaukee’s near west side agreed to fix

minimum prices on 40, 32, and 20 ounce beer bottles. Two business associations

and the Milwaukee police department’s “weed and seed” initiative also

participated in the agreement. See Exhibit 6.


18

83. In 2009, RHI was hired by the Milwaukee Downtown Business

Improvement District to facilitate collusion among licensed establishments in

downtown Milwaukee.

Breckenridge, Colorado

84. Pursuant to the charged conspiracy, in March 2008, sixteen licensed

establishments agreed with one another to stop offering drink specials after 12:00

PM and shot specials for under $3.00. See Exhibits 7-8. Upon information and

belief, RHI helped to facilitate the formation of the agreement.

85. In June 2010, RHI held in Denver the “Colorado Sociable City

Forum: Investing in a Safe and Viibrant Nighttime Economy.” The Breckenridge

Chief of Police was a speaker at the forum.

Hollywood, California

86. Pursuant to the charged conspiracy, in or around 2005 a group of

licensed establishments in Hollywood agreed with one another to not offer any

“reduced price alcoholic beverage promotion.” See Exhibit 9. The agreement

was facilitated by RHI, and can be found as a resource tool on RHI’s website.

87. The agreement was spearheaded by Elizabeth Peterson, a

hospitality consultant, the owner of several night clubs, and the former vice

president of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Peterson is a regular

speaker at RHI events around the country.

88. Plaintiff has purchased alcoholic drinks from Applebee’s Chili’s,

Fuddruckers, and Famous Dave’s in the twin cities during the course of the


19

charged conspiracy. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff has purchased alcohol

from other establishments that are participants in the charged conspiracy.

COUNT 1 – PRICE FIXING (all defendants)

89. Plaintiff repeats and realleges allegations 1 through 88 above.

90. As discussed herein, the charged defendants participated in a

contract, combination, and conspiracy to eliminate or reduce drink promotions at

licensed establishments in the twin cities and elsewhere.

91. The conduct alleged above was part of a single conspiracy operating

in the twin cities and other communities in the United States and elsewhere.

92. The charged conspiracy is ongoing.

93. The charged conspiracy is conducted within and has a substantial

impact on interstate commerce.

94. The charged conspiracy constitutes a per se violation of the Sherman

Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1.

95. The named defendants who are not retailers of alcoholic drinks aided

and abetted the conspiracy through their actions discussed herein, and benefitted

financially from the conspiracy

96. Plaintiff is a victim of the charged conspiracy in that he overpaid for

drinks purchased from firms engaged in the charged conspiracy.


20

97. Pursuant to the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 15(a), Plaintiff seeks

to recover three times his overcharge damages, plus costs, disbursements, and

reasonable attorney fees to the extent allowed by law.

COUNT 2 – RACKETEERING (all defendants except Robert H. Bruininks)

98. Plaintiff repeats and realleges allegations 1 – 88 above.

99. Defendants and others have voluntarily and intentionally devised

and engaged in a scheme to defraud another of money and have engaged in

specific fraudulent acts pursuant to that scheme with the intent to defraud.

100. Defendants and others have on numerous occasions used the United

States’ mail for the purpose of executing and furthering the scheme, in violation of

18 U.S.C. Section 1341. The defendants and others have on numerous occasions

used interstate wire communications for the purpose of executing and furthering

the scheme, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1343.

101. The charged conspiracy constitutes an enterprise within the meaning

of the RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c). Defendants and other persons

engaged in the charged conspiracy through a continuous and related pattern of

racketeering activity, including multiple violations of the federal mail fraud and

wire fraud statutes.

102. Among the legitimate organizations infiltrated by the conspiracy

were the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the American Medical Association,

Harvard University, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Wisconsin.


21

103. Plaintiff was injured in his property by reason of defendants’

racketeering activities. He seeks a recovery for his injuries pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

Section 1964(c).

JURISDICTION

104. The Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

Section 1331.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court:

1. Find that defendants engaged in price fixing in violation of 15

U.S.C. § 1.

2. Find that defendants engaged in racketeering activity in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1343.

3. Order defendants to cease their involvement in the charged

conspiracy.

4. Award plaintiff treble his actual damages, costs and disbursements,

and attorney fees as permitted by law.

5. Award any other relief that the Court deems just and proper.

Dated March 30, 2011 s/Steven E. Uhr Steven E. Uhr, pro se

MN. I.D. No.: 0284038 4524 Balfanz Rd. Edina, MN 55435 (952) 239-0346


2nd Amended Complaint

Documents

Transcript of 2nd Amended Complaint