Bio
Carmen Medici is a partner in Scott+Scott’s San Diego office who specializes in antitrust class action litigation focused on the technology, pharma, financial, energy, and commodities sector. He represents businesses and consumers who are the victims of price-fixing, monopolization, collusion, and other anticompetitive and unfair business practices. He has worked on multiple complex class action and other cases to verdict, including winning a $39 million verdict on behalf of the State of Connecticut in 2025 in a False Claims Act case. State of Connecticut v. Assured Rx LLC et al., No. HHD-CV18-6101282-S (Connecticut Superior Court, Harford District). Mr. Medici was recognized in 2025 and 2026 as a “Litigation Star” by Benchmark Litigation.
Carmen is co-lead counsel in In re RealPage, Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (No. II), No. 23-md-03071 (M.D. Tenn.), a groundbreaking case alleging that major property owners and managers across the country used advanced data collecting techniques and artificial intelligence to inflate the cost of living to millions of renters nationwide. He is also co-lead counsel in Klein, et al v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 20-cv-08570 (N.D. Cal.) where he represents advertisers who allege they overpaid for advertising purchased from Meta Platforms (f/k/a Facebook). Carmen also leads the Scott+Scott team heading up Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, et al., No. 23-cv-05095 (S.D.N.Y.), a case against Citi, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, RBC, and Morgan Stanley through real-time Bloomberg instant messaging, conspired to and did manipulate the market for UK government bonds (known as Gilts) to benefit their own spreads and trading books to the detriment of their clients. He led the team in researching and developing In re: Shale Oil Antitrust Litig., No. 24-md-3119 (D.N.M.) the first case alleging the shale frackers in the United States were working with OPEC to reduce worldwide oil production to inflate their profits directly harming U.S. gasoline purchasers during and coming out of the COVID pandemic. This case was followed by a raft of government inquiries, including a Federal Trade Commission complaint which determined that a certain participant in the industry was working to coordinate production levels with parties overseas.
REPRESENTATIVE CASES PRIOR TO SCOTT+SCOTT:
- In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig., No. 05-md-01720 (E.D.N.Y.) ($5.5 billion settlement)
- In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litig., No. 13-cv-07789 (S.D.N.Y.) ($2.3 billion in settlements)
- In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litig., No. 14-cv-3116-PAE (S.D.N.Y.)
- In re Remicade Antitrust Litig., No. 2:17-cv-04326-KSM (E.D. Pa.)
- Lincoln Adventures, LLC v. Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, No. 2:08-cv-00235 (D. N.J.)
Admissions
- State of California
- State of Arizona
- United States District Court for the Northern District of California
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
- United States District Court for the Central District of California
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
- United States District Court for the District of Colorado
- United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuits
Education
- University of San Diego School of Law (J.D.)
- Arizona State University (B.S.)