Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04125/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04125-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
MCI Communications Corp.
Not Party
Telestar, Inc.
Appellant
Western Tele-Communications, Inc.
Appellee
Westmarc Communications, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

,· ,. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

TELES TAR, INC. , 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

MCI COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, 

WESTERN TELE-COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 

and WESTMARC COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

.FILED 

Umtoo St.ates Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

APPEALS 

OCT O 9 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

Nos. 90-4125 & 90-4128 

(D.C. No. 89 C-0068-S) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HOLLOWAY, SETH and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

Appellant TeleSTAR, Inc. ("TeleSTAR") appeals an order of the 

district court dismissing its complaint for failure to plead with 

the requisite specificity facts sufficient to support a claim for 

an antitrust violation. On appeal, TeleSTAR contends that the 

district court erred by not considering either the "improper 

means" exception or the "sham" exception to the Noerr-Pennington 

Doctrine. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 

affirm. 

We review the sufficiency of a complaint de novo and apply 

the same standard as the district court. Morgan Y..!.. City of 

Rawlins, 792 F.2d 975, 978 (10th Cir. 1986). All well-pleaded 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-4125 Document: 010110090791 Date Filed: 10/09/1991 Page: 1 
✓ ' • 

allegations in the plaintiff's complaint are presumed true. 

Curtis Ambulance of Fla., Inc. Y..!.. Board of County Comm'rs, 811 

F.2d 1371, 1374 (10th Cir. 1987). The complaint will not be 

dismissed unless it appears that the plaintiff cannot prove any 

facts entitling him to relief. Id. at 1375 (citing Scheuer Y..!.. 

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)). 

TeleSTAR argues that the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine does not 

immunize the appellees' conduct with regard to the FCC proceeding 

at issue in this case. Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference Y..!.. 

Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961); Mine Workers Y..!.. 

Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965). Appellant contends that the 

"improper means" and "sham" exceptions to the Noerr doctrine 

provide a cause of action given the facts alleged in their 

complaint. In an attempt to meet the requirements of the 

"improper means" exception, TeleSTAR asserts that a conspiracy 

existed between the appellees and the FCC. Although this circuit 

has not explicitly addressed whether there is a conspiracy 

exception to the Noerr Doctrine, see Oberndorf Y..!.. Denver, 900 F.2d 

1434, 1440 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 129 (1990), the 

United States Supreme Court recently made it very clear that there 

is absolutely no conspiracy exception to the Noerr Doctrine. See 

City of Columbia Y..!.. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 111 S. Ct. 

1344, 1355 (1991) ("we conclude that a 'conspiracy' exception must 

be rejected"). Therefore, the appellant's "improper means" 

argument must fail. 

We next address whether TeleSTAR's complaint is sufficient to 

state a cause of action under the "sham" exception to Noerr. In 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-4125 Document: 010110090791 Date Filed: 10/09/1991 Page: 2 
City of Columbia, the Supreme Court stated that "the 'sham' 

exception to Noerr encompasses situations in which persons use the 

governmental process -- as opposed to the outcome of that process 

-- as an anticompetitive weapon." Id. at 1354. Thus, in order to 

satisfy the "sham" exception and to state a cause of action, 

TeleSTAR must demonstrate that the appellees sought to use the 

process -- and not the outcome of that process -- for 

anticompetitive effects. The complaint must show that the 

appellees' actions were "not genuinely aimed at procuring 

favorable government action." Allied i, Conduit Corp. Y..!.. Indian 

Head, Inc., 468 U.S. 492, 500 n.4 (1988). 

Simply stated, in this case, the appellees appeared before 

the FCC and opposed the issuance of the FCC licenses to TeleSTAR. 

The FCC eventually denied TeleSTAR's request for a license. 

TeleSTAR then filed its complaint alleging that the appellees had 

interfered with the FCC process in violation of antitrust laws. 

However, the complaint provides no factual basis for any 

allegation that the appellees were attempting to use the process 

for an anticompetitive effect. Instead, according to the 

complaint, it appears that the appellees used the outcome of the 

process 

effect. 

the denial of a license -- for an anticompetitive 

Although the appellees may have attempted to harm 

TeleSTAR's place in the market, they attempted to do so only 

through the ultimate product of the FCC process. Under the City 

of Columbia standard, this type of activity remains protected 

under Noerr. Therefore, TeleSTAR failed to allege sufficient 

facts to state a claim for an antitrust violation. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-4125 Document: 010110090791 Date Filed: 10/09/1991 Page: 3 
~ ' . 

Because the activities allegedly engaged in by the appellees 

are protected under the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, the district 

court properly dismissed TeleSTAR's complaint. AFFIRMED. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-4125 Document: 010110090791 Date Filed: 10/09/1991 Page: 4