throbber
Page 1 of 6
`Case 1:22-cr-00113-SPW Document1 Filed 09/19/22
`Case 1:22-cr-00113-SPW Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 6
`
`FILED
`
`SEP 1 5 2022
`
`Clerk, U S District Court
`District Of Montana
`Billings
`
`BRYAN T. DAKE
`Assistant U.S. Attorney
`U.S. Attorney’s Office
`James F. Battin Courthouse
`2601 Second Avenue North, Suite 3200
`Billings, MT 59101
`Phone:
`406-657-6101
`Fax:
`406-657-6058
`Email:
`Bryan.Dake@usdoj.gov
`
`JEREMY M. P. GOLDSTEIN
`Trial Attorney
`United States Department of Justice
`Antitrust Division
`450 Golden Gate Avenue, Room10-0101
`San Francisco, CA 94102
`Phone:
`415-229-2934
`Fax:
`415-934-5399
`Email:
`Jeremy.Goldstein@usdoj.gov
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
`
`BILLINGS DIVISION
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,_|CR 22-j j J-BLG- SPW
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`INFORMATION
`
`vs.
`
`NATHAN NEPHIZITO,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ATTEMPTED MONOPOLIZATION
`Title 15 U.S.C. § 2
`(Penalty: Ten years of imprisonment,
`$1,000,000 fine, and three years of
`supervised release)
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cr-00113-SPW Document1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 6
`Case 1:22-cr-00113-SPW Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 6
`
`The United States of America, acting through its attorneys, charges:
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Atall times relevant to this Information:
`
`1.
`
`The United States Departmentof Transportation (“U.S. DOT”), a
`
`federal agency under the executive branch of the Governmentof the United States,
`
`administers and distributes federal funds to state and local government agencies
`
`responsible for, among other things, the construction, maintenance, and
`
`rehabilitation of highways, bridges, and tunnels. Federal Highway Administration
`
`(“Federal Highway”) is an agency within U.S. DOTandit supportsstate and local
`
`governments in the design, construction, and maintenanceofthe federal highways.
`
`2.
`
`The Montana Department of Transportation (“MDOT”) is an agency
`
`underthe executive branch of the State of Montana, andit oversees construction,
`
`maintenance,and rehabilitation of transportation infrastructure in Montana.
`
`Similarly, the Wyoming Department of Transportation (“WYDOT”), an agency
`
`underthe executive branch of the State of Wyoming, oversees construction,
`
`maintenance, and rehabilitation of transportation infrastructure in Wyoming.
`
`3.
`
`Crack sealing is the processoffilling cracks in asphalt or pavementto
`
`prevent water, sand, and dirt from damaging the substrate. MDOT and WYDOT
`
`invite contractors to compete for crack sealing projects on Montana and Wyoming
`
`highways and other public roadwaysandtypically award projects to the lowest
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cr-00113-SPW Document1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 6
`Case 1:22-cr-00113-SPW Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 6
`
`bidders. These crack sealing projects are often funded in wholeorin part by U.S.
`
`DOT.
`
`
`
`4, COMPANYAis a paving and asphalt contractor incorporated in the
`
`State of Montana and headquartered in Billings, Montana. The defendant,
`
`NATHANNEPHI ZITO,is the owner and president of COMPANY A.
`
`Approximately 95% of COMPANY A’s business comes from providing crack
`
`sealing services on publicly-funded highway projects.
`
`
`
`5. COMPANYBis a paving and asphalt contractor. INDIVIDUAL| is
`
`the owner and president of COMPANYB.
`
`6.
`COMPANY A and COMPANYB routinely compete for the same
`publicly-funded highway crack sealing projectsand, in many instances, are the
`
`only two companiesthat submit bids for crack sealing projects administered by
`
`WYDOTandstate departments of transportation in neighboringstates.
`
`7.
`
`Wheneverin this Information reference is made to any act, deed, or
`
`transaction of a business organization, the allegation meansthat the business
`
`organization engagedin the act, deed, or transaction by or through its officers,
`
`directors, employees, agents, or other representatives while they were actively
`
`engaged in the management,direction, control, or transaction of its business or
`
`affairs.
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cr-00113-SPW Document1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 4 of 6
`Case 1:22-cr-00113-SPW Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 4 of 6
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE
`
`8.
`
`In January 2020, ZITO telephoned INDIVIDUAL1 to propose a
`
`“strategic partnership.” INDIVIDUAL1 reported ZITO’s phonecall to Federal
`
`Highway, which notified the U.S. DOT Office of Inspector General (“U.S. DOT
`
`OIG”). With INDIVIDUAL1’s cooperation, U.S. DOT OIG recorded additional
`
`phonecalls between ZITO and INDIVIDUAL 1 between March and October 2020.
`
`9.
`Over the course of those calls, ZITO proposed that COMPANY A and
`
`COMPANYBstop competing against each other by dividingterritories in |
`
`Montana, Wyoming, and neighboring states. Under the termsof this proposed
`
`market-allocation agreement, which ZITOlaid out in a June 16, 2020call,
`
`INDIVIDUAL1’s COMPANYB wouldstop bidding for publicly-funded highway
`
`crack sealing projects in Montana and Wyoming and ZITO’s COMPANYA would
`
`do the same in South Dakota and Nebraska. ZITO proposed that COMPANY A
`
`pay COMPANY B $100,000 as additional compensation for COMPANY B’s lost
`
`business in Montana and Wyoming.
`
`10.
`
`From the outset, ZITO stated his intention to eliminate COMPANY B
`
`as a competitor in Montana and Wyoming. He told INDIVIDUAL1 thatif they
`
`agreed not to compete, their companies’ revenue streams would be more stable and
`
`their margins would be higher.
`
`
`
`11. ZITO proposed that COMPANY A and COMPANYBenterinto a
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cr-00113-SPW Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 5 of 6
`Case 1:22-cr-00113-SPW Document1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 5of6
`
`written contract that memorialized the market-allocation agreement, but obscured
`
`its effects. The written contract included an option to purchase COMPANY B,
`
`even though INDIVDIUAL | told ZITO that he had nointention ofselling his
`
`company,andthesale of a piece of equipment valued significantly above its worth.
`
`12. Ultimately, INDIVIDUALI refused to enter into the sham agreement
`
`and rejected ZITO’s invitation to divide territories and end competition between
`
`COMPANYA and COMPANYBin Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, and
`
`Nebraska.
`
`COUNT1
`
`Beginningat least as early as January 2020, and continuing until at least
`
`October 2020, in Billings, within Yellowstone County, in the State and District of
`
`Montana, and elsewhere, the defendant, NATHAN NEPHI ZITO, knowingly
`
`engaged in anticompetitive conduct with the intent to gain monopoly powerin the
`
`markets for highway crack sealing services in Montana and Wyoming. There
`
`existed a dangerous probability that, had the defendant’s proposed market
`
`allocation been effectuated, COMPANY A would have gained monopoly powerin
`
`those markets. The defendant’s conduct occurred in and affected interstate
`
`commerce. All in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 2.
`
`Ml
`
`Mf
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cr-00113-SPW Document1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 6 of6
`Case 1:22-cr-00113-SPW Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 6 of 6
`
`DATED this
`
`day of September, 2022.
`
`U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
`
`rTRICT OF MONTANA, by CYNDEE L. PETERSON
`
`Criy inal Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney
`
`U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
`
`ANTITRUST DIVISION,py
`
`DOHA G. MEKKI
`Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
`General
`
`GhAE.
`
`
`
`RICHARD A. POWERS
`Deputy Assistant Attorney General
`
`AANAAfyhur CtC-iL-
`
` ANISH KUMAR
`Chief, San Francisco Office
`JACKLIN CHOU LEM
`
`Assistant-Chief, San Francisco Office
`
`
`
`MM. P-@OLDSTEIN
`EMY
`al Attorney, San Francisco Office
`
`
`
`a 2 ae
`
`— fa
`
`_
`—,
`7
`. DAKE
`BRY
`Assistant U.S. Attorney
`
`“,
`
`‘
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket