A federal court in Seattle has dismissed an antitrust lawsuit brought against Matson Navigation Company and Horizon Lines, LLC.
I have obtained the decision which can be downloaded here. The case is In Re Hawaiian & Guamanian Cabotage Antitrust Litigation, No. 08-md-1972 TSZ.
This case is interesting on several fronts. First, this court dismissed the complaint on its face ruling that the allegations were not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss the complaint. Under the federal rules of civil procedure, traditionally, all that a complaint had to allege was a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The Supreme Court changed that requirement for antitrust plaintiffs in its decision in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Post-Twombly plaintiffs must allege, with specificity, facts that state a "plausible" round for relief. In this case, allegations of common membership in trade associations, attendance at the same meetings, all constituted "parallel activity" but not a concrete allegation of illegal agreement. As such, it was dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend the complaint within 30 days.
Second, the court found the Filed Rate Doctrine applicable. This doctrine, stemming from the Supreme Court decision in Keogh v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co., 260 U.S. 156 (1922), barred antitrust plaintiffs from rebates when prices are disclosed to a government regulatory authority. In this case, the rates were filed with the Surface Transportation Board. This court found that the Board could enforce anti-competitive violations.
Side note: Twombly is not without controversy. Last year, the Supreme Court expanded its reach beyond antitrust but other areas of civil litigation. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. ___ (2009). Legislation is being considered to overturn the Twombly/Iqbal standard.
Comments