United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007-08-13
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; group-boycott claim by domain-name owner against casinos; summary judgment for defendants; plaintiff appeals; result: remanded; claim:
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/496/0403-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007 | Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; count: the casinos' May 30, 2001 joint rejection of TWA's collective lease proposal; subject: count=the casinos' May 30, 2001 joint rejection of TWA's collective lease proposal A seller who solicits competitors as a group cannot treat their collective "no" to that offer as a conspiracy. | concerted-action/joint-rejection-of-joint-offer | In May 2001, TWA appeared before the TCTC and proposed to lease “tunica.com” collectively to all of the casinos in Tunica County, Mississippi.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [2252:2394] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201.None of the casinos agreed to TWA’s proposal, and the casinos apparently reached a consensus to not jointly utilize the “tunica.com” domain name.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [3045:3190] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201.Given the joint nature of TWA’s initial proposal, which invited the casinos to respond together as a single entity, the casinos’ decision to reject that proposal is not concerted action subject to section 1.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [12346:12553] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201. |
| /f3d/496/0403-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007 | Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable; count: the casinos' alleged agreement to refuse to deal with TWA individually (May 2001 and November 2002); subject: count=the casinos' alleged agreement to refuse to deal with TWA individually (May 2001 and November 2002) Statements and emails by a casino marketing director reporting what was agreed at the trade-association meeting are direct evidence, so plausible independent business reasons do not entitle defendants to summary judgment. Admissibility (party admission / co-conspirator statement) is assumed and left for remand. | direct-evidence/participant-admission-of-gentlemens-agreement-to-boycott | Shortly after the TCOA meeting, Clyde Callicott, the marketing director for Gold Strike, allegedly told Graziosi that the casinos had entered into a “gentlemen’s agreement” to not do business with TWA, either individually or as a group.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [3330:3566] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201.I wish I could do more but my hands have been officially tied by the TCOA on this issue.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [3885:3974] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201.Graziosi asserts that Callicott told her that, at the May 30, 2001 meeting, Robert McQueen, General Manager of the Horseshoe Casino, stated that the domain name would be worthless if none of the casinos dealt with TWA.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [4107:4325] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201.According to another email from Callicott to Graziosi, the casinos met in November 2002 and again decided to refuse to advertise on “tunica.com,” in the hopes that the value of the domain name would decrease and the casinos could buy it at a later date.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [14362:14615] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201.To establish concerted action, the plaintiff must present “evidence that reasonably tends to prove that the [defendants] had a conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve an unlawful objective.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [8505:8715] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201.If TWA can establish concerted action by the casinos through this sort of direct evidence, then it is not required to provide circumstantial evidence, such as the details surrounding its later proposals to the casinos, from which a concerted refusal to deal can be inferred.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [14616:14890] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201.Accordingly, we hold that the district court erred when it found that TWA’s proffered evidence did not create any issue of fact on the element of concerted action.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [16472:16635] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201. |
| /f3d/496/0403-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007 | Restraint of trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/496/0403-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007 | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsAntitrust-injury argument not reached below; defendants may reurge on remand. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/496/0403-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007 | Relevant product/geographic market definition and market power under the Rule of Reason | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/496/0403-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007 | Per se illegality for naked restraints manifestly anticompetitive and lacking redeeming virtue | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / meritsCourt corrects the legal test (victim need not compete with a conspirator; horizontality is among the boycotters) but does not decide whether per se treatment applies; the three Northwest Wholesale factors go to the district court. | group-boycott/horizontal-buyers-boycotting-non-competitor-supplier | Under the definition of “horizontal” found in NYNEX and Business Electronics Corp., the casinos’ alleged agreement to not do business with TWA is clearly a horizontal agreement, as the casinos are direct competitors of one another.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [19744:19975] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201.We agree with the district court that TWA and the casinos are not in competition with each other. TWA operates a website. The casinos own and operate casinos, hotels, and other leisure-related activities.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [31853:32057] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201.Thus, although direct competition with the victim will frequently exist in cases of per se unlawful boycotts, nothing in Northwest Wholesale Stationers indicates that it is an absolute prerequisite to a finding of per se illegality if the agreement in question is marked by any of the other traits identified in that case.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [23605:23927] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201.Instead, to determine the applicability of the per se rule in this case, the district court should have analyzed the following factors: (1) whether the casinos hold a dominant position in the relevant market; (2) whether the casinos control access to an element necessary to enable TWA to compete; and (8) whether there exist plausible arguments concerning pro-competitive effects.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [26138:26519] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201.Applying the foregoing principles, we conclude that the district court erred in finding that the per se rule only applies in situations where one of the conspirators is a direct competitor of the victim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [25934:26137] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201. |
| /f3d/496/0403-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007 | Presumptive Rule of Reason burden-shifting analysis (antitrust market + anticompetitive effect vs procompetitive justification) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/496/0403-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007 | Antitrust standing / efficient enforcer test (Associated General Contractors; Illinois Brick) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court basis: law; party: Graziosi individually (sole shareholder and CEO of TWA); subject: party=Graziosi individually (sole shareholder and CEO of TWA) The DISTRICT COURT's ruling, reported in a footnote and not reviewed: Graziosi does not challenge it on appeal, so this panel decides nothing about standing. The opinion does not give the district court's reasoning; [law] is inferred from the variant (shareholder of the injured corporation). | improper-plaintiff/shareholder-of-injured-corporation | The district court held that Graziosi did not individually have standing to pursue the antitrust claims. Although Graziosi is listed as an appellant, she does not appear to challenge the district court’s standing ruling on appeal.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [28425:28655] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201. |
| /f3d/496/0403-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007 | Parker v. Brown state-action immunity (Midcal two-prong test: clearly articulated state policy + active state supervision) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; party: the casino defendants; subject: party=the casino defendants One-sentence affirmance by reference; three distinct immunities (Local Government Antitrust Act, Parker, Noerr-Pennington) are lumped together with no reasoning in this opinion. | private-parties/trade-association-members-claiming-parker-lgaa-noerr | The court rejected the other defendants’ claims that they were entitled to immunity from plaintiffs’ antitrust claims under the LGAA, the Parker doctrine, and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [5963:6152] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201.Finally, we reject the casinos’ immunity claims for essentially the reasons stated in the district court's November 24, 2004 order.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [32809:32940] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
To establish concerted action, the plaintiff must present “evidence that reasonably tends to prove that the [defendants] had a conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve an unlawful objective.”
/f3d/496/0403-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007
To establish concerted action, the plaintiff must present “evidence that reasonably tends to prove that the [defendants] had a conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve an unlawful objective.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_496.jsonl#/f3d/496/0403-01; Unicode character offsets [8505:8715] (end exclusive); SHA-256 2e7bf47d83c34c0b4e79ec63d6ed3cf9a5e59ba0f90c9fd20bec55b9f6416201.Encompasses two distinct sub-inquiries: (1) capacity/plurality of actors (Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984); American Needle), and (2) existence/proof of an actual agreement rather than unilateral conduct (United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919)) or mere conscious parallelism (Twombly; Matsushita).