John E. Sindoni

John is currently engaged in several antitrust class actions, including representing a class of hospitals challenging restrictions by a surgical robot manufacturer on competition for replacement surgical instruments and robot repairs in In re da Vinci Surgical Robots Antitrust Litig., No. 3:21-cv-03825 (N.D. Cal.). He also represents end-payer plaintiffs in a class action alleging a conspiracy among generic drug manufacturers to reduce competition and fix prices in In re Generic Drugs Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2724, 16-MD-2724 (E.D. Pa.), and consumers of store-brand infant formula in Conry v. Gerber Products Co., No. 24-cv-6784 (E.D.N.Y.).

Before joining Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky, John was a Partner with Boni, Zack & Snyder. Previously, John also worked as an associate in the trial department at Duane Morris and as a Staff Attorney for the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Some of John’s prior experience includes In re Interior Molded Doors Antitrust Litig., Lead Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00718-JAG (E.D. Va.)(represented direct purchaser class challenging a conspiracy to fix interior door prices); Keiler v. Harlequin Enterprises Ltd., No. 12-5558 (S.D.N.Y.) (represented a class of authors challenging a publisher’s method for calculating e-book royalties, which resulted in a class-wide settlement); American Express Travel Related Services, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., No. 04-CV-08967-BSJ-DFE (S.D.N.Y.) (defended a credit-card issuer against an antitrust case involving  Visa and MasterCard policies); In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1682 (E.D. Pa.) (represented a chemical company that opted out of a class action and pursued its own antitrust claims); Cosmetic Gallery, Inc. v. Schoeneman Corporation, No. 01-4896 (D.N.J.) (defended a distributor in a case alleging group boycott related to distribution policies for hair care products);  Schreiber v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 05-2616 (E.D. Pa.) (represented plaintiffs in an inventorship and patent infringement case concerning a major pharmaceutical product).

John’s pro bono experience includes having represented a prisoner in a Section 1983 action alleging use of excessive force by prison guards. The case settled on the eve of trial.

John was recognized on the Pennsylvania SuperLawyers “Rising Stars” list from 2015 – 2018 and the Pennsylvania SuperLawyers list from 2019 – 2026. He is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where he served as Executive Editor of the Law Review and was a member of the Moot Court Board, and from the University of Pennsylvania School of Arts and Sciences. He is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and  numerous federal courts.

John’s experience includes:

• In re da Vinci Surgical Robots Antitrust Litig., No. 3:21-cv-03825 (N.D. Cal.) (antitrust class action pending)
• In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litig., MDL 2724, 16-MD-2724 (E.D. Pa.) (antitrust class action pending)
• Conry v. Gerber Products Co., 24-cv-6784 (E.D.N.Y.) (antitrust class action pending).
• Ya Mon Expeditions, LLC v. Allied Marine, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-20805 (S.D. Fla.) (court  appointed co-lead counsel; antitrust class action pending)
• In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig., No. 1:13-cv-7789-LGS (S.D.N.Y.) (antitrust class action settlements)
• In re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litig., No. 11-MD-2262 (S.D.N.Y.)
• Laumann v. National Hockey League, No. 12-civ-1817 (S.D.N.Y.)
• Garber v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, No. 12-civ-3704 (S.D.N.Y.) (antitrust class action settlements)
• Keiler v. Harlequin Enterprises Ltd., No. 12-5558 (S.D.N.Y.) (book publishing class action settlement)
• In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa.) (antitrust class action settlement)
• In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1682 (E.D. Pa.) (represented chemical company that opted out of class action settlement)
• American Express Travel Related Services, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., No. 04-CV-08967-BSJ-DFE (S.D.N.Y.) (represented credit-card issuer in defense of antitrust action)
• Cosmetic Gallery, Inc. v. Schoeneman Corp., No. 01-4896 (D.N.J.) (represented a distributor defendant in action alleging group boycott relating to limited distribution policies for hair care products).

Certain results may have been obtained while the attorney was practicing at another law firm.