### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T June 30, 2004 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK

Ho no ra bleF ra nk J. Mag ill , Unite d St ate s Senio r Judg efo r t heEi ghth Circuit , * sitti ngby designation. [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 03- 14588

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 2 1 7 5 5 - C V- P AS S P A N I S H B R O A D C A S T I N G S Y S T E M O F F L O R I D A , I N C ., P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C L E A R C H A N N E L C O M M U N I C A T I O N S , I N C ., H I S P A N I C B R O A D C A S T I N G C O R P O R A T I O N , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 30, 2004) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d M A G IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. *2

B A R K E T T , C i rc ui tJudg e: S pani sh B roadcas t i ng S ys t em (“ S B S ”) appeal s the di sm i ss al w i th p re j ud i ce of i t s F i rs tA m ended C om pl ai ntun der S ec t i on s O ne and T w o o f the S herm an A ct a ga i ns tC l e a rC ha nne l ( “ C C ” ) a nd the H i s pa ni c B r oa dc a s t i ng C orpor a t i on ( “H B C ” ) . S B S a n d H B C a r e th e tw o la r g e s t o w n e r s o f S p a n is h - la n g u a g e r a d io s t a t i ons i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s . S B S ow ns f our t e e n s t a t i ons i n s e ve n S pa ni s hla n g u a g e r a d io m a r k e ts , in c lu d in g f iv e o f th e to p te n U .S . S p a n is h - la n g u a g e r a d io m arket s, w hi l e H B C ow ns fi fty- fi ve st at i on s a nd op er at es i n eac h o f the t op t en S p a n is h - la n g u a g e m a r k e ts . C C ow ns the l a r ge s tne tw ork of E ngl i s h- l a ngua ge r a di o s t a t i ons i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s , c ove r i ng s om e 1200 s t a t i ons i n m or e tha n 300 m arket s. C C al so ow ns 26 % of H B C . S B S sued C C and H B C , cl ai m i ng thatthey h a d a tte m p te d to lim it th e ab ility o f S B S to c o m p e te in th e S p a n is h - la n g u a g e r a d io m arketand sou gh tt o d ri ve S B S ou tof bu si ness by engagi ng i n n um er ou s pra ct i ce s m a d e u n la w f

u l b y th e S h e r m a n A c t. C o n g ress p assed th e S h erm an A ct , th e fi rstm aj o r p i ece o f an t i tru st l egi sl at i on , i n 1 89 0. F ol l ow i ng the C i vi l W ar , rapi d i nd ustri al i za t i on un der re l at i vel y l i m i t ed go vernm ent al re gu l at i on al l ow ed l ar ge fi rm s a nd coordi nat ed g ro u p s i n sev eral i n d u stri es t o am ass co n si d erab l e eco n o m i c p o w er atth e ex p en se o f s m a lle rr iv a ls . C o n g r e s s s o u g h t to r e s to r e a c o m p e titiv e e n v ir o n m e n t a n d lim it3

the form at i on , pers i st ence , and p ow erof l ar ge, ant i com pet i t i ve com bi nat i on s. S ee , e . g. , A pe x H os i e ry C o. v. L e a de r , 310 U . S . 469, 491- 95 & n. 15 ( 1940) ( di s c us s i ng l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t ory ) . S e c t i on O ne of the A c tpr ohi bi t s c ontr a c t s , c om bi na t i ons a nd c ons pi r a c i e s i n r e s tr a i ntof tr a de , w hi l e S e c t i on T w o pr ohi bi t s m onopol i z a t i on, a tte m p te d m o n o p o liz a tio n a n d c o n s p ir a c y to m o n o p o liz e . 1 5 U .S .C . § § 1 - 2 . A l though C ongr e s s ha s a l s o ba rr e d s pe c i f i c pr a c t i c e s thr ough s ubs e que nt l egi sl at i on , and al tho ug h the i nt erpret at i on and enforcement of these prov i si on s has va r i e d c ons i de r abl y ove rt i m e , the S he rm a n A c tr e m a i ns the ba s i c c orne r s t one of a n titru s t la w . B e c a us e the S he r m a n A c tc ont a i ns onl y ge ne r a l l a ngua ge , c our t s ha ve pl a y e d a n e xtr e m e l y i m por t a ntr ol e i n s hapi ng the r e a c h of the A c ta nd the re qu i re m ent s f

or st at i ng a c ause of ac t i on un der e ac h sec t i on . C ri t i ca l l y, un der b o th s e c tio n s , a n a n titru s t p la in tif f m u s t s h o w h a rm to c o m p e titio n in g e n e r a l, r a the rtha n m e r e l y da m a ge t o a n i ndi vi dua l c om pe t i t or . S e e A m . K e y C orp. v. C ol e N a t ’ l C orp. , 762 F . 2d 1569, 1579 n. 8 ( 11th C i r . 1985) ( “ H a rm t o c om pe t i t i on i s a ne c e s s a ry e l e m e ntof a l l pr i va t e a nt i trus ts ui t s unde rS e c t i ons 1 a nd 2 of the S he r m a n A c t . . . . ” ) . A s the S upr e m e C our tha s e xpl a i ne d: [ T ] he purpos e of

the [ S he r m a n] A c ti s nott o pr ot e c tbus i ne s s e s f r om the w or ki ng of

the m a r ke t ; i ti s t o pr ot e c tthe publ i c f r om the f a i l ur e of the m arket . T he l aw di re ct s i t se l f notagai nstcond uctw hi ch i s c om pet i t i ve, e ve n s e ve r e l y s o, buta ga i ns tc onduc tw hi c h unf a i r l y t e nds t o de s tr oyUnless otherwise noted, “c omplaint” in this opi nion refers to the Fir st Amended 1 Com plaint . SB S f

ile d th eF ir st Amende d Co mpl aint be fo rethede fendantsfi le d a re sp on sein order to curetechnical difficulties with its original pleadings. Thedistrict court also tre ated alleg ations made at the oral he aringas par t of this complaint. The court “ allowed SB S to rectify orally the facial def

iciencie s in its Amended Complaint because a t this procedural stag e, the Court must draw all re asonableinferences in the Plaintiff’s f avor a nd consider, in the interests of justice and e fficiency, the Plaintiff’s best arguments.” Order of Jan. 31, 2003 at 1 n.1. We have pre vious ly

allo we d distri c t c ourt s toc on sider alle g atio ns madein o ral argument o n th emotion to dismiss . See, e.g ., Oxford Asset Mgmt. v. J aharis, 297 F.3d 1182, 1194-95 ( 11th Cir. 2002). As discussed below, SB S also attempted to file a Sec ond Amended Complaint with its mot ion for rec onsideration. 4 c om pe t i t i on i t s e l f

. I tdoe s s o notoutof

s ol i c i tude f

orpr i va t e c onc e rns but o u t o f c o n c e rn f

o rth e p u b lic in te r e s t. S p e c tru m S p o r ts , I n c . v . M c Q u illa n , 5 0 6 U .S . 4 4 7 , 4 5 9 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . T h is c a s e tu rn s in l ar ge parton w hether S B S has m eti t s obl i gat i on t o al l ege f ac t s thatw ou l d sup po rt a s h o w in g o f

th is h a r m to c o m p e titio n , r a th e rth a n m e r e ly to its e lf . T h e c o m p la in t c o n ta in e d c la im s a g a in s t b o th C C a n d H B C a s f o llo w s : 1 ( 1) C C a nd H B C ha ve c ons pi r e d t o a dve r s e l y a f f e c tS B S ’ s s t oc k pr i c e by pr e s s ur i ng a na l y s t s nott o c ove rS B S s t oc k, by l e a ki ng c onf i de nt i a l i nf

orm a t i on ab o u ta n a tt e mp t e d a c q u i s i t i o n o f SBS, a n d b y e n c o u r a g i n g i n v e s t o r s t o s e l l SBS st ock; (2) C C and H B C have conspi re d t o m ake i tm ore di ff i cul tfor S B S t o acqui re n ew rad i o st at i o n s b y b i d d i n g u p p ri ces an d b y w ro n g fu l l y ap p ro p ri at i n g b u si n ess o p p o r tu n i t i e s c r e a t e d b y SBS; a n d ( 3 ) CC a n d H BC h a v e i n d u c e d v a r i o u s SBS e m pl oy e e s t o br e a c h the i rc ontr a c t s a nd j oi n H B C . I n a ddi t i on, the c om pl a i nt co n t ai n ed sp eci fi c cl ai m s ag ai n stC C al o n e: (4 ) C C h i n d ered S B S ’ s ab i l i ty t o rai se5

c ap ita l b y s p r e a d in g ru m o r s ab o u t a n S B S e x e c u tiv e a n d b y th r e a te n in g to w i thdr a w C C ’ s ow n bus i ne s s f r om a n unde rw r i t i ng f

i rm i f i tw or ke d w i th S B S ; a nd ( 5 ) C C le v e r a g e d its o w n e r s h ip o f b o th c o n c e r t v e n u e s a n d a H is p a n ic e nt e r t a i nm e ntc om pa ny i n or de rt o di s c our a ge a dve r t i s e r s f r om pur c ha s i ng t i m e on SBS. S B S a l l e ge d tha tthe s e pr a c t i c e s c ons t i tut e d a n a gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n C C a nd H B C t o res tra i n tra de i n v i ol at i on of S ec t i on O ne of the S herm an A ctas w el l as a tt e m pt e d m onopol i z a t i on by both C C a nd H B C of the m a j orS pa ni s h- l a ngua ge ra di o m arket s i n v i ol at i on of S ec t i on T w o o f the A ct . In addi t i on t o federa l a n titru s t v io la tio n s , S B S c la im e d c a u s e s o f a c tio n u n d e rF lo r id a a n d C a lif o rn ia st atu t es an d u n d er v ari o u s co m m o n l aw th eo ri es. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d is m is s e d S B S ’s c o m p la in t w ith p r e ju d ic e , p u r s u a n t to F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 12 (b)( 6), af t erconcl ud i ng thatS B S coul d n otm ee t th e r e q u i r e me n t s n e c e s s a ry t o ma i n t a i n a Sh e rma n a n t i tru s ts u i t . O n ap p e a l , SBS a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d a s a m a tte ro f la w in d is m is s in g th e c o m p la in t, ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in f a ilin g to g r a n t le a v e to a m e n d th e c o m p la in t, a n d e rr e d in d is m is s in g th e c o m p la in t w ith p r e ju d ic e . W e r e vi e w de novo a di s tr i c tc our tde c i s i on t o di s m i s s a n a nt i trus tc om pl a i nt unde rR ul e 12( b) ( 6) f

orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e a c l a i m . L ow e l l v. A m . C y a na m i d C o. , 1776

F . 3d 1228, 1229 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . W e a c c e ptthe f a c tua l a l l e ga t i ons i n the c om pl a i nta s true a nd m a ke a l l r e a s onabl e i nf e r e nc e s i n f

a vorof the non- m ovi ng pa r ty . T he thr e s hol d of s uf f i c i e nc y tha ta c om pl a i ntm us tm e e tt o s urvi ve a m ot i on to d is m is s is e x c e e d in g ly lo w , a n d R u le 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) d is m is s a ls a r e p a r tic u la r ly d i s f a v o r e d i n f

a c t - i n t e n s i v e a n t i tru s tc a s e s . Qu a l i ty F o o d s d e C e n tr o Am e r i c a , S . A. v. L at i n A m er i ca n A gri bu si ness D ev. C orp. , S . A . , 71 1 F . 2d 98 9, 99 4-95 (11th C i r. 1983) . T he c om pl a i nts houl d onl y be di s m i s s e d w i th pr e j udi c e i f i tappe a r s be y ond d o u b t th a t S B S c a n p r o v e n o s e t o f f a c ts w h ic h w o u ld e n title it to r e lie f . S t. J o s e p h ’s H o s p ., I n c . v . H o s p . C o rp . o f A m ., 7 9 5 F .2 d 9 4 8 , 9 5 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) . I n thi s c a s e , ne i the rthe c om pl a i ntnorthe appe l l a t e br i e f s a r e m ode l s of c l a r i ty i n de f

i ni ng the pr e c i s e c l a i m s br oughtunde rthe a nt i trus tl a w s orde s c r i bi ng ho w the fa ctual al l egat i on s i n the com pl ai ntsa t i sf y the neces sa ryel em ent s of e ac h s pe c i f i c c l a i m . N one the l e s s , w e w i l l a tt e m ptt o c a t e gor i z e the c l a i m s i n t e rm s of e x i s t i n g a n t i tru s tc a s e l a w.

I . She r m a n A c t Se c t i o n O ne S ect i o n O n e o f th e S h erm an A ctp ro v i d es: E v ery co n tract , co m b i n at i o n i n th e fo rm o f tru sto r o th erw i se, o r co n sp i racy, i n r e s tr a i ntof

tr a de orc om m e r c e a m ong the s e ve r a l S t a t e s orw i th f or e i gn n a tio n s , is d e c la r e d to b e ille g a l.7

15 U . S . C . § 1 . T hu s, S ec t i on O ne proh i bi t s c om bi nat i on s a nd conspi ra ci es that r e s tr a in in te r s ta te o rf

o r e ig n tr a d e . T h is p r o v is io n ap p lie s b o th to a g r e e m e n ts b e tw e e n c o m p a n ie s th a t d ir e c tly c o m p e te w ith o n e a n o th e r , c a lle d “h o r iz o n ta l” a gr e e m e nt s , a nd t o a gr e e m e nt s be tw e e n bus i ne s s e s ope r a t i ng a tdi f f e r e ntl e ve l s of th e s a m e p r o d u c t’s p r o d u c tio n c h a in o rd is tr ib u tio n c h a in , k n o w n a s “v e r tic a l” agre em ent s. In addi t i on , al tho ug h som e r es tra i nt s on tra de re m ai n i l l egal per s e, s uc h a s c e r t a i n a gr e e m e nt s t o f i x pr i c e s , m os ta s s e r t e d a nt i trus tvi ol a t i ons now re qu i re “ the fi nd erof fa ct[t o] deci de w hether the qu es t i on ed pract i ce i m po se s a n u n reaso n ab l e restrai n to n co m p et i t i o n , t ak i n g i n t o acco u n ta v ari ety o f fact o rs, i nc l udi ng s pe c i f

i c i nf or m a t i on aboutthe r e l e va ntbus i ne s s , i t s c ondi t i on be f or e a nd af t erthe re stra i ntw as i m po se d, and the re stra i nt ’ s hi st ory, nature, and eff ec t . ” S t a t e O i l C o. v. K ha n, 522 U . S . 3, 10 ( 1997) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . S e c t i on O ne c l a i m s tha tdo nota l l e ge pe rs e a nt i trus tvi ol a t i ons a r e a na l y z e d unde rthi s “ rul e of re as on , ” a nd the cl ai m s f ai l i f the re stra i nton tra de i s r ea sonabl e. B oth p art i es a c c e p t th a t th e ru le o f

r e a s o n ap p lie s to th e S e c tio n O n e c la im s r a is e d b y S B S in th is c a s e . S e c tio n O n e ap p lie s o n ly to a g r e e m e n ts b e tw e e n tw o o rm o r e b u s in e s s e s ; it doe s notc ove runi l a t e r a l c onduc t . F i s he rv. C i ty of B e rke l e y , 475 U . S . 260, 266 ( 1986) ( “ E ve n w he r e a s i ngl e f i r m ’ s r e s tr a i nt s di r e c t l y a f f e c tpr i c e s a nd ha ve theSBS asserte d that it considered therelevant market to be adver tising purchased in the top 2 ten Spanish-languag e mar kets and that HB C earne d 51% of the advertisingrevenue in that market. For thepurposes of the12(b)( 6) motion, the district court assumed that a relevant market had been shown for theSection One c laims. W e makethe same a ssumption here. 8 s a m e e c o n o m ic e f

f e c t a s c o n c e r te d a c tio n m ig h t h a v e , th e r e c a n b e n o liab ility unde r§ 1 i n the abs e nc e of a gr e e m e nt . ” ) . T hus , f

orthe purpos e s of

ourS e c t i on O n e a n a ly s is , w e o n ly c o n s id e rth e a lle g e d c o n s p ir a c y b e tw e e n C C a n d H B C . U n f o r tu n a te ly , S B S d o e s n o t s p e c if y th e p r e c is e n a tu r e o f

th e a g r e e m e n t a lle g e d in i t s co m p l ai n to r co n n ecti tt o an y p art i cu l ar an t i -tru stth eo ry i d en t i fi ed i n th e case l a w . E ve n i f

w e w e r e t o a s s um e tha tC C a nd H B C a c t e d i n c onc e r tf orpurpos e s of S e c t i on O ne , how e ve r , w e w oul d s t i l l a f f i rm he r e , gi ve n tha tS B S f a i l e d t o a l l e ge s u f f i c i e n ta n t i c o mp e t i t i v e e f f e c t , a c r i t i c a l c o mp o n e n to f a n y a n t i tru s tc l a i m. U nd erE l eventh C i rc ui tca se l aw , al l eged S ec t i on O ne agree m ent s a nal yz ed un der the rul e of r ea son requi re a pl ai nt i ff “ t o p rove (1) the ant i com pet i t i ve ef fe ct o f th e d ef

en d an t’ s c o n d u ct o n th e r elev an t m ar k et , an d (2 ) th at th e d ef en d an t’ s 2 c onduc tha s no pr o- c om pe t i t i ve be ne f i torj us t i f

i c a t i on. ” L e vi ne v. C e nt . F l a . M e d. A f f i l i a t e s , I nc . , 72 F . 3d 1538, 1551 ( 11th C i r . 1996) . I n a l l e gi ng “ the a nt i c om pe t i t i ve e f

f e c tof the de f e nda nt ’ s c onduc t , ” a n a nt i trus tpl a i nt i f f m us ts how ha r m t o c om pe t i t i on r a the rtha n t o c om pe t i t or s . T ha ti s , the “ a nt i c om pe t i t i ve e f f e c t s ” a r e m e a s ur e d by the i ri m pa c ton the m a rke tr a the rtha n by the i ri m pa c ton com pet i t ors. S ee , e. g. , D i ckson v . M i cr osoftC orp. , 30 9 F . 3d 19 3, 20 6 (4th C i r.9

2002) ( “ T o ha ve a n ‘ a nt i c om pe t i t i ve e f f e c t , ’ c onduc t‘ m us tha rm the c om pe t i t i ve p r o c e s s a n d th e r e b y h a r m c o n s u m e r s . . . [ H ]a rm to o n e o rm a n y c o m p e tito r s w ill n o ts u f f i c e . ’ ” ) ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d St a t e s v . M i c r o s o f tCo rp . , 2 5 3 F. 3 d 3 4 , 5 8 ( D . C. C i r . 2001) ) . I n or de rt o pr ove thi s a nt i c om pe t i t i ve e f f e c ton the m a rke t , the pl ai nt i ff “ m ayei ther prove thatthe defendant s’ behavi or had an actual detri m ent al effect on co m p et i t i o n , o r th atth e b eh av i o r h ad th e p o t en t i al fo r g en u i n e ad v erse e f f e c ts o n c o m p e titio n .” L e v in e , 7 2 F .3 d a t 1 5 5 1 ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . I n a n a tte m p t to m e e t th is b u r d e n , S B S f o c u s e s u p o n th e h a rm it a lle g e d ly suff er ed atthe hand s of H B C and C C , such as w ea kened st ock p ri ce s, re stri ct ed a c c e s s t o c api t a l m a r ke t s , l os s of e m pl oy e e s , da m a ge d r e put a t i on, a nd l os s of a d v e r tis in g r e v e n u e . N o n e o f th e s e a lle g a tio n s a s s e r t d a m a g e to c o m p e titio n its e lf r a the rtha n da m a ge t o S B S , one c om pe t i t ori n the S pa ni s h- l a ngua ge a dve r t i s i ng m a r ke t . A s the di s tr i c tc our ti ndi c a t e d, the a m e nde d c om pl a i ntc ont a i ns no a l l e ga t i ons a ta l l abouta f a c tua l c onne c t i on be tw e e n the c onduc ta l l e ge d a nd ove r a l l i m pa c ton the a dve r t i s i ng m a rke t . I nde e d, a tor a l a r gum e ntbe f or e the di s tr i c tc our t , S B S s t a t e d tha tC C w or ke d t o ke e p S pa ni s h- l a ngua ge a dve r t i s i ng rat es low eri n o rd er t o m ax i m i ze E n g l i sh -l an g u ag e ad v ert i si n g rev en u es. I n A q u a th e r m I n d u s tr ie s v . F lo r id a P o w e r& L ig h t C o ., 1 4 5 F .3 d 1 2 5 8 ( 1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ), w e u p h eld a R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ) d ism issa l o f a claim th at th e d ef en d an t’ s10

ac t i on s, i ncl ud i ng the di ss em i nat i on of fa l se i nform at i on , vi ol at ed the S herm an A c t . W e e m pha s i z e d tha tda m a ge t o a s i ngl e c om pe t i t or , e ve n a s a r e s ul tof de l i be r a t e m i s i nf

or m a t i on, doe s nots t a t e a c l a i m unde rS e c t i on O ne of the S h e r m a n A c t: A qu atherm do es no tshow , or even cl ai m , thatthe ac t i on s by F P L harm ed c om pe t i t i on i n the [ r e l e va nt ] m a rke t . I t s onl y c l a i m i s F P L a c t e d unf a i r l y by di ss em i nat i ng fa l se i nform at i on , and thi s unfai r c om pet i t i on i n turn h arm ed A q u ath erm ’ s b u si n ess. T h i s cl ai m o f u n fai r co m p et i t i o n i s not s u f f ic ie n t to supp orta c l ai m un der § 1 o r a ny other f eder al ant i trustprov i si on . A s l on g as no r e s tr a i nton c om pe t i t i on oc c urr e d, the r e i s no c a us e of a c t i on unde r§ 1. A qu atherm , 14 5 F . 3d at12 63 (e m ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). H er e, as w el l , w e f i nd that a l though S B S m a y ha ve a l l e ge d “ unf a i r ” c om pe t i t i ve pr a c t i c e s , i tdi d not a de qua t e l y a l l e ge a c tua l ha r m t o c om pe t i t i on. O n appe a l , the pl a i nt i f

f s a r gue tha tbe c a us e S B S i s the pr i m a ry c om pe t i t orof H B C in th e S p a n is h - la n g u a g e a d v e r tis in g m a rk e t, a n y d a m a g e it s u f f e r s in h e r e n tly da m a ge s c om pe t i t i on i n tha tm a r ke t . T he y r e l y upon F ul l D r a w P r oduc t i ons v. E a s t on S por t s , I nc . , 182 F . 3d 745 ( 10th C i r . 1999) , a nd C a r i bbe a n B r oa dc a s t i ng S ys t em , L t d. v. C abl e & W i re l es s P L C , 14 8 F . 3d 10 80 (D . C . C i r. 19 98 ), as e xa m pl e s of

c om pl a i nt s tha ts ur vi ve d m ot i ons t o di s m i s s de s pi t e a l l e gi ng da m a ge t o o nl y one com pet i t or. H ow ever , i n tho se tw o cas es , the pl ai nt i ff s a l so al l eged h a r m to c o m p e titio n in g e n e r a l b y p o in tin g to th e s p e c if ic d a m a g e d o n e to c ons um e r s i n the r e l e va ntm a r ke t . S e e F ul l D r a w , 182 F . 3d a t753- 54 ( di s c us s i ngWe also note that the market for Spanish-languag e radio adver tising is not limi ted to two 3 competitors, as the a

rgument by

SBS impli es. Ac cordingto the numbers provide d by SBS to the district court, some 26% of the market is not controlled by either HBC or SB S. That 26% includes the 10% ma

rket share belong ing to Entra vision, which is one-third owned by Univision, HB C’ s n ew m erg er p art

ner. SB S madethe sefac tual alle g atio ns at th ehe aringon themotion

to dismiss before the district cour t. Tr. at 20-23. Seealso supra note1 (explaining the district court’s c onsideration of alleg ations made at the hearing on themotion to di smiss). 11 th e r e d u c tio n in e x h ib itio n s p a c e a t a r c h e ry tr a d e s h o w s f o llo w in g th e c o m p le te e l i m i na t i on of

the s ol e c om pe t i t or ) ; C a rr i be a n B r oa dc a s t i ng, 148 F . 3d a t1086- 87 (di sc ussi ng al l egat i on s thatthe defendant s’ com pl et e m on op ol y on C ar i bb ea n E ng l i sh-l angu age F M ra di o adv ert i si ng ac tual l y c ause d con sum er s t o p ayhi gh er pr i c e s a nd tha tthe de f

e nda nt s ’ de c e pt i ve pr a c t i c e s a nd f r i vol ous obj e c t i ons t o the pl a i nt i f f’ s l i c e ns e appl i c a t i on he l pe d s us t a i n tha tm onopol y ) . I n both c a s e s , the de f e nda nt s ’ a nt i c om pe t i t i ve pr a c t i c e s a c hi e ve d ac om pl e t e m onopol y i n the rel ev an tm ark et , l eav i n g co n su m ers w i th n o al t ern at i v e. T h ati s si m p l y n o tth e case here . A l tho ug h d am age t o a cr i t i ca l com pet i t or m ay a ls o d a m a g e c o m p e titio n in general , S B S bear s the bu rden of draw i ng thati m pl i ca t i on w i th speci fi c f ac tual al l egat i on s. Ithas notdo ne so here . 3 C o n c lu d in g th a t n o “a c tu a l d a m a g e to c o m p e titio n ” h a s b e e n s u f f ic ie n tly a l l e ge d i n the pl a i nt i f

f’ s a m e nde d c om pl a i nt , w e turn t o the a l t e rna t i ve m e thod f or a l l e gi ng a n a nt i c om pe t i t i ve e f f e c t : the “ pot e nt i a l f

orge nui ne a dve r s e e f

f e c t s on c o m p e titio n .” L e v in e , 7 2 F .3 d a t 1 5 5 1 . A t am in im u m , th is r e q u ir e s a p la in tif f to “d e f in e th e r e le v a n t m a r k e t a n d e s tab lis h th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts p o s s e s s e d p o w e rin12

tha tm a r ke t . ” M a r i s D i s tr i b. C o. v. A nhe us e r - B us c h, I nc . , 302 F . 3d 1207, 1213 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ; s e e a l s o Le v i n e , 7 2 F. 3 d a t1 5 5 1 . Fo rth i s c l a i m, w e a s s u me w ith o u t d e c id in g , a s d id th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, th a t th e p la in tif f s h a v e a lle g e d a d e q u a te m a r ke tpow e ri n the r e l e va ntm a rke t . H ow e ve r , m a rke tpow e ra l one c a nnotbe s u f f i c i e n tt o s h o w th e p o t e n t i a l f o rg e n u i n e a d v e r s e e f

f e c t s o n c o mp e t i t i o n . I n FT C v. I ndi a na F e de r a t i on of D e nt i s t s , 476 U . S . 447 ( 1986) , the c a s e f r om w hi c h the E l eventh C i rc ui tdrew i t s t es t , se e L evi ne, 72 F . 3d at15 51 , the S up re m e C ou rt ne ve rs t a t e d tha tm a r ke tpow e ra l one c oul d e s t abl i s h the pot e nt i a l f orge nui ne advers e e ff

ec t s on com pet i t i on . R ather, because the C ou rtfoun d “ ac tual , sust ai ned a d v e r s e e f

f e c ts o n c o m p e titio n ,” th e r e w a s n o n e e d f o ra d d itio n a l in q u iry in to m arketpo w er . 47 6 U . S . at46 0-61 . S i m i l ar l y, i n an earl i erca se on vert i ca l pri ce re stra i nt s i n thi s c i rc ui t , w e not ed thatm arketpo w erw ou l d n otbe enou gh t o st at e a S e c tio n O n e c la im u n d e rth e ru le o f r e a s o n : T h e b u r d e n o f

p r o v in g u n r e a s o n ab le e f f e c ts in a ru le o f

r e a s o n c a s e r e s ts w i th the a nt i trus tpl a i nt i f f . T he r e f or e , [ the pl a i nt i f

f ] , a f t e rc r os s i ng the th r e s h o ld o f

s h o w in g [ th e d e f

e n d a n t’s ] m a rk e t p o w e r , w a s r e q u ir e d to e s t abl i s h tha tthe i nt e rbr a nd m a rke ts truc tur e w a s s uc h tha ti ntr abr a nd com pet i t i on w as a c ri t i ca l source of com pet i t i ve pres sure on pri ce , and h ence o f c o n s u m e rw e lf

a r e . G r aphi c P r ods . D i s tr i bs . , I nc . v. I t e k C orp. , 717 F . 2d 1560, 1573 ( 11th C i r . 1983) (i nt ernal ci t at i on s a nd pu nctuat i on om i tt ed). O ther c ou rt s of app ea l s have r ea ched th e s a m e c o n c lu s io n a n d r e q u ir e d s p e c if ic a lle g a tio n s lin k in g m a rk e t p o w e rtoSee Amende d Complaint ¶ 12; Tr. at 20-23, 34-38. 4 13 ha r m t o c om pe t i t i on i n tha tm a r ke t . A s the S e c ond C i r c ui tr e c e nt l y s t a t e d: E ven ass um i ng thi s m arketshar e dat a i m pl i es that[the defendant ] po ss es se d m a r ke tpow e r , [ the pl a i nt i f f ] s t i l l w oul d f

a i l t o s a t i s f

y i t s bur de n unde rthe ad v erse-effect requ i rem en t . M ark etp o w er, w h i l e n ecessary to sh o w ad v erse ef fe cti nd i re ct l y, al on e i s i nsuffi ci ent . A pl ai nt i ff se eki ng t o u se m arket p o w e ra s ap r o x y f

o ra d v e r s e e f

f e c tmu s ts h o w ma rk e tp o w e r , p l u s s o me other groun d for bel i evi ng thatthe chal l enged b ehavi or coul d h arm c om pe t i t i on i n the m a r ke t , s uc h a s the i nhe r e nta nt i c om pe t i t i ve na tur e of the d e f e n d a n t’s b e h a v io ro rth e s tru c tu r e o f th e in te rb r a n d m a rk e t. T ops M kt s . , I nc . v. Q ua l i ty M kt s . , I nc . , 142 F . 3d 90, 97 ( 2d C i r . 1998) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) ; s e e a l s o D i c ks on, 309 F . 3d a t205- 07. I n thi s c a s e , S B S ha s notde s c r i be d how the de f e nda nt s ’ a l l e ge d be ha vi or w ou l d b e l i kel y t o h arm com pet i t i on . In fa ct , as the di stri ctcourtno t ed, S B S has e xpa nde d c ons i de r abl y ove rthe pa s tf e w y e a r s , ha s a s ha r e of the N e w Y ork, C h ic a g o a n d M ia m i m a r k e ts s o m e w h a t c o m p a r ab le to th a t o f H B C , a n d w a s its e lf e n g a g e d in m e r g e rta lk s w ith H B C . B y its o w n a d m is s io n , a d v e r tis e r s c o n tin u e to shi ftl ar ger port i on s of thei r bud gett ow ar d the S pani sh-l angu age m arketas that m a r ke tgr ow s . S B S a dm i tt e d tha tc ons um e r s c urr e nt l y pa y l e s s f orS pa ni s hl angu age a dv ert i si ng than they m i gh ti n the abse nce of C C ’ s a ct i vi t i es . G i ven th e s e a lle g e d f

a c ts , a n d in th e ab s e n c e o f s p e c if ic a lle g a tio n s d e ta ilin g th e th r e a t to 4 the S pani sh-l angu age a dv ert i si ng m arket , S B S di d n otst at e acl ai m for r el i ef a ga i ns tC C orH B C unde rS e c t i on O ne , a nd the di s tr i c tdi d note rri n di s m i s s i ng the14

S e c tio n O n e c la im s o f

th e F ir s t A m e n d e d C o m p la in t.

I I . S h e r m a n A c t S e c t i o n T wo S ect i o n T w o o f th e S h erm an A ctp ro v i d es: E ve ry pe r s on w ho s ha l l m onopol i z e , ora tt e m ptt o m onopol i z e , orc om bi ne orc ons pi r e w i th a ny othe rpe r s on orpe r s ons , t o m onopol i z e a ny pa r tof the tr a de orc om m e r c e a m ong the s e ve r a l S t a t e s , orw i th f or e i gn na t i ons , s ha l l be d e e m e d g u ilty o f

a f e lo n y . . . . 1 5 U .S .C . § 2 . T h u s , S e c tio n T w o m a k e s it ac r im e to m o n o p o liz e , to a tte m p t to m o n o p o liz e , o rto c o n s p ir e to m o n o p o liz e a n y p a r t o f in te r s ta te o rf

o r e ig n tr a d e . T hi s pr ovi s i on c ove r s be ha vi orby a s i ngl e bus i ne s s a s w e l l a s c oor di na t e d a c t i on t ak en b y sev eral b u si n esses. T he F i r s tA m e nde d C om pl a i nta l l e ge d onl ya tt e m pt e d m onopol i z a t i on, w hi ch i nv ol ves three di st i nctel em ent s: “ (1) the defendanthas e ng aged i n p re dat ory or ant i com pet i t i ve cond uctw i th (2) a s peci fi c i nt entt o m on op ol i ze and (3) a d a n g e r o u s p r o b ab i l i ty o f a c h i e v i n g mo n o p o l y p o w e r . ” Sp e c tru m Sp o r t s , 5 0 6 U . S. a t 4 5 6 . L ik e c la im s u n d e rS e c tio n O n e , S e c tio n T w o c la im s r e q u ir e h a rm to c om pe t i t i on tha tm us toc c urw i thi n a “ r e l e va nt ” , tha ti s , a di s t i nc tm a rke t , w i th a spec i fi c s etof geog raph i ca l bo un dari es and a narrow del i neat i on of the prod uct s a t i s s ue . S e e U . S . A nc horM f g. v. R ul e I ndus . , 7 F . 3d 986, 995 ( 11th C i r . 1993)Ma ny antitr us t c a se s turn

on thepre c isede finition

of thi s ma rke t, a s de fendantsc onte st 5 wh e ther t hey po sse ss m arke t po wer o r whether t here straint

at is su ea ff

e c te d th emarke t a s a whole. 15 (“ D efi n i n g a rel ev an tp ro d u ctm ark eti s p ri m ari l y a p ro cess o f d escri b i n g th o se gr oups of

pr oduc e r s w hi c h, be c a us e of the s i m i l a r i ty of

the i rpr oduc t s , ha ve the abi l i ty— a c tua l orpot e nt i a l

— t o t a ke s i gni f i c a nta m ount s of

bus i ne s s a w a y f

r om ea ch other. ”) . U nd erS ec t i on O ne, thi s “ re l evantm arket ” m usthave been harm ed

5 by an un re as on abl e r es tra i nton tra de, L . A . D raper & S on v. W heel abra t or-F ry e, Inc. , 73 5 F . 2d 41 4, 42 1 (11 th C i r. 19 84 ), w hi l e und erS ec t i on T w o, the al l eged m onopol i s tm us tpos s e s s e nough pow e rorpot e nt i a l pow e ri n thi s “ r e l e va nt m a r k e t ” i n o r d e rt o h a r m c o m p e t i t i o n . Mo rr i s C o m m u n i c a t i o n s C o rp . v . P GA To u r , I n c . , 3 6 4 F. 3 d 1 2 8 8 , 1 2 9 3 - 9 4 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) . A s n o t e d ab o v e , SBS e xpl a i ne d tha ti tc ons i de r e d the r e l e va ntm a rke tt o be a dve r t i s i ng pur c ha s e d i n the t op t e n S pa ni s h- l a ngua ge m a r ke t s a nd tha tH B C e a rne d 51% of the a dve r t i s i ng r e v e n u e in th a t m a r k e t. W e f i r s ta ddr e s s the a l l e ga t i ons a s the y pe r t a i n t o C C . T he r e i s no que s t i on th a tCC d o e s n o tp a r t i c i p a t e i n th e Sp a n i s h - l a n g u a g e r a d i o ma rk e t . Th u s , CC c a nnota tt e m ptt o m onopol i z e tha tm a rke t . S e e A qua the rm , 145 F . 3d a t1261 ( r e j e c t i ng a n a tt e m pt e d m onopol i z a t i on c l a i m a ga i ns ta de f e nda ntw ho di d not c om pe t e i n the r e l e va ntm a r ke t ) . S B S a tt e m pt s t o ove r c om e thi s hur dl e by poi nt i ngThe c omplaint notes that the Depa rtment of Just ice c onsidered thetwo companies 6 “suff iciently related” so a s to block the transfer of radio stations. This does not impl y control over da y-to-day operations. S imilarly , the alleg ation that CC ex ecutives acted “ on behalf of HB C” may

imply an agreement or conspiracy but not control such that CC should be considere d a par ticipant in the market. 16 outtha tC C ow ns 26% of H B C , i m pl y i ng tha tthi s e i the rm a ke s C C a n e f f e c t i ve p a r t i c i p a n ti n th e r e l e v a n tma r k e to ra tl e a s tg i v e s CC s u f f i c i e n tc o n tr o l o v e rH BC t o pe r m i ta tt e m pt e d m onopol i z a t i on. W e r e j e c tthi s c ont e nt i on. A bs e nta l l e ga t i ons of si gn i fi ca ntcontrol ov erthe po l i ci es of a s ub si di ary, a m i no ri ty ow ners hi p share do es no tconv erta par entcorporat i on i nt o a com pet i t or. In C ar i bb ea n B r o a d c a s tin g , a c a s e h e a v ily r e lie d u p o n b y S B S , th e D .C . C ir c u it s p e c if ic a lly r e je c te d a c la im a g a in s t ap a r e n t c o rp o r a tio n g r o u n d e d u p o n a 2 7 % o w n e r s h ip i nt e r e s ti n the pl a i nt i f

f’ s di r e c tc om pe t i t or . 148 F . 3d a t1088. A s the c our tnot e d,

“ one c om pa ny ’ s m i nor i ty ow ne r s hi p i nt e r e s ti n a nothe rc om pa ny i s nots uf f i c i e nt by i t s e l f t o m a ke the ow ne ra c om pe t i t or , f orpurpos e s of

the a nt i trus tl a w s , of

the s ubs i di a ry ’ s r i va l s . T o be a c om pe t i t ora tthe l e ve l of the s ubs i di a ry , the pa r e nt m us tha ve s ubs t a nt i a l c ontr ol ove rthe a f f a i r s a nd pol i c i e s of

the s ubs i di a ry . ” I d. A l tho ug h the com pl ai ntal l eges thatC C has “ vet o p ow er ” over H B C m er ger a nd s t oc k de c i s i ons , the c om pl a i ntc ont a i ns no a l l e ga t i ons w i th r e s pe c tt o c ontr ol ove rda y - t o- da y ope r a t i ons orge ne r a l c orpor a t e pol i c i e s . I n f a c t , the ( s e a l e d) 6 S ec on d A m ended C om pl ai ntcont ai ns fa ctual al l egat i on s i ncon si st entw i th thatMo re ov er, e ven if SB S had alle g e d s uf

fi c ient c ontrol o ver HB C by CC tostatea

c laim 7 fo r att emp t edm o n o p o l i z at i o nb y C C , th i s wo u l d

n o th av e c ure d

th e c o mp l ai nt ’s fa i lure t o al l ege harm to competition rather than ha rm to SBS alone.

17 l evel of i nfl uence. S B S has poi nt ed t o n o cas e i n w hi ch a m i no ri ty s hare ho l der c an a tte m p t to m o n o p o liz e a m a r k e t o n b e h a lf o f its s u b s id ia ry , n o rc a n w e lo c a te o n e . T h u s , th e o n ly S e c tio n T w o c la im a v a ilab le a g a in s t C C m ig h t b e c o n s p ir a c y to m o n o p o l i ze, w h i ch w as n o trai sed i n th e F i rstA m en d ed C o m p l ai n t . A cco rd i n g l y, 7 because C C do es no tpart i ci pat e i n the re l evantm arket , S B S ’ s a tt em pt ed m onopol i z a t i on c l a i m a ga i ns tC C w a s pr ope r l y di s m i s s e d. W e th e r e f

o r e tu rn t o th e a tt e mp t e d mo n o p o l i z a t i o n c l a i m a g a i n s tH BC. T he f i r s te l e m e ntof

thi s c l a i m r e qui r e s a pl a i nt i f f t o a l l e ge f

a c t s tha ts how tha tthe d e f e n d a n t h a s e n g a g e d in p r e d a to ry o ra n tic o m p e titiv e c o n d u c t. T h is a n tic o m p e titiv e c o n d u c t c r ite r io n c ap tu r e s th e c r itic a l a n titru s t id e a o f h a rm to c om pe t i t i on, r a the rtha n t o c om pe t i t or s . “ R e ga r dl e s s of the de f e nda nt ’ s pow e ror in te n t, its c o n d u c t m a y b e in c ap ab le o f p r o d u c in g m o n o p o ly , a n d th u s u n ab le to s a t i s f y the a tt e m ptr e qui r e m e nt . ” A r e e da & H ove nka m p, I I I A A nt i trus tL a w ¶ 806 ( 2002) . I n f

a c t , “ the c onduc tr e qui r e m e nti s a r guabl y the s i ngl e m os ti m por t a nt a s p e c t” o f

a tte m p te d m o n o p o liz a tio n . N o r th e a s te rn T e l. C o . v . A m . T e l. & T e l. C o ., 6 5 1 F .2 d 7 6 , 8 5 ( 2 d C ir . 1 9 8 1 ) . A s w i th S ec t i on O ne cl ai m s, cond uctthati nj ures i nd i vi du al fi rm s r ather than18

c o mp e t i t i o n i n th e ma r k e ta s a w h o l e d o e s n o tv i o l a t e Se c t i o n Tw o . Th e Su p r e me C our tha s e xpl a i ne d tha t“ [ e ] ve n a n a c tof pur e m a l i c e by one bus i ne s s c om pe t i t or ag ai n stan o th er d o es n o t , w i th o u tm o re, st at e a cl ai m u n d er th e fed eral an t i tru st l a w s . ” B r ooke G r oup L t d. v. B r ow n & W i l l i a m s on T oba c c o C orp. , 509 U . S . 209, 22 5 (19 93 ). In thi s c i rc ui t , w e have af fi rm ed a di re ct ed verdi cton an att em pt ed m onopol i z a t i on c l a i m i n pa r tbe c a us e the pl a i nt i f f “ f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e a ny c ogni z abl e a nt i c om pe t i t i ve e f f e c tof [ the de f e nda nt ’ s ] unf

a i rc om pe t i t i on. ” M f

g. R e s e a r c h C o rp . v . G r e e n le e T o o l C o ., 6 9 3 F .2 d 1 0 3 7 , 1 0 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) . W e n o t ed th at“ [o ] u r cases h av e reco g n i zed th ati n j u ry t o a co m p et i t o r n eed n o tal w ays r e s ul ti n i nj ury t o c om pe t i t i on. T he us e of unf a i rm e a ns r e s ul t i ng i n the s ubs t i tut i on of

one c om pe t i t orf

ora nothe rw i thoutm or e doe s notvi ol a t e the ant i trustl aw s. ” I d. S i m i l ar l y, the N i nth C i rc ui tup hel d the di sm i ss al of an a tt e m pt e d m onopol i z a t i on c l a i m f orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e a c l a i m be c a us e the c om pl a i nt m er el y a l l eged an att em ptt o el i m i nat e tw o fi rm s f rom the m arketra ther than i nj ury to c o m p e titio n : N ow he r e i n the i rA F A c om pl a i nt , how e ve r , do appe l l a nt s a l l e ge i nj ury t o the c om pe t i t i ve m a r ke tf

orP B [ pol y buty l e ne ] . I ns t e a d, the y a l l e ge tha tthe ac t i on s betw ee n S hel l O i l defe nd ant s a nd thei r overs ea s a ff i l i at es “ w er e ta k e n f o rth e p u rp o s e o f

e lim in a tin g [ ap p e lla n ts ] a s r e p r e s e n ta tiv e s o f S h e ll C hem i ca l and as s el l er s of P B and P B -r el at ed prod uct s, and for the fi nanci al b e n e f it o f d e f e n d a n t S h e ll C h e m ic a l a n d th e p a r tie s a c tin g in c o n c e r t w ith s uc h de f e nda nt . ” T hus appe l l a nt s f a i l t o s t a t e a n a nt i trus tc l a i m ba s e d on defe nd ant s’ cond uctw i th res pectt o P B and P B -r el at ed prod uct s. Iti s i nj uryWe need not dec ide whether any of these alleg ed practices w ould giverise to state law 8 c laims . Wemere ly

no tethat th ey

dono t a uto matic ally

g iveri seto a

n a ntitr us t c laim. 19 to th e m a r k e t o rto c o m p e titio n in g e n e r a l, n o t m e r e ly in ju ry to in d iv id u a ls o rin d iv id u a l f

irm s th a t is s ig n if

ic a n t. M cG l i n ch y v . S h el l C h em . C o . , 8 4 5 F . 2 d 8 0 2 , 8 1 2 -1 3 (9 th C i r. 1 9 8 8 ); see al so J os e ph B a ue r& W i l l i a m H . P a ge , I I K i ntne r ’ s F e de r a l A nt i trus tL a w ¶ 14. 35 ( 2002) ( not i ng tha t“ pr a c t i c e s tha tha rm othe rf i rm s w i thoutha rm i ng c om pe t i t i on .

. . ca nn otconst i tut e unl aw ful l y e xcl usi on ary c on du cti n the att em ptcont ext . ”) C a r e f ul e xa m i na t i on of

the F i r s tA m e nde d C om pl a i ntr e ve a l s no a l l e ga t i ons o f a n tic o m p e titiv e c o n d u c t th a t c o u ld s u s ta in a c la im u n d e rS e c tio n T w o . W ith r e s p e c t to H B C , S B S a lle g e s th a t H B C le v e r a g e d its r e la tio n s h ip w ith C C to o b ta in pr e f e r e nt i a l tr e a tm e ntf

r om a udi t or s a nd i nve s t or s , di s c our a ge d a na l y s t s a nd in v e s to r s f

r o m d e a lin g w ith S B S , m is r e p r e s e n te d th e s ta te o f S B S ’s f in a n c e s in o r d e rto a d v e r s e ly a f

f e c t S B S ’s s to c k p r ic e , a n d e n g a g e d in a b id d in g w a rw ith SBS o v e ra Lo s A n g e l e s r a d i o s t a t i o n . A s w i th th e Se c t i o n O n e c l a i ms , SBS e s s e nt i a l l y ur ge s us t o e qua t e ha r m t o i tw i th ha rm t o c om pe t i t i on a s a m a tt e rof l aw . W e d o n o tb el i ev e th e l aw su p p o rt s th i s p ro p o si t i o n . W h i l e so m e o f th ese spec i fi c pra ct i ce s m i gh tbe chara ct er i ze d as unsavory, or even i l l egal un der other l a w s , the y do notgi ve r i s e t o a f e de r a l a nt i trus tc l a i m w i thoutf a c tua l a l l e ga t i ons 8 s pe c i f i c a l l y a ddr e s s i ng how the s e pr a c t i c e s ha ve ha rm e d c om pe t i t i on. A s theAs with the Section One c laims, SBS also argues that, as the principal competitor of 9 HB C in the market, har

m to it i nherently

constitutes harm to competition. For therea sons stated in t hepre vious se c tio n, were je c t this a rgument. 20 S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s s ta te d , th e a n titru s t la w s “d o n o t c r e a te a f e d e r a l la w o f

u n f a ir co m p et i t i o n o r p u rp o rtt o affo rd rem ed i es fo r al l t o rt s co m m i tt ed b y o r ag ai n st pers on s e ng aged i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce . ” B rook e G roup , 50 9 U . S . at22 5 (i nt ernal quot a t i on m a r ks om i tt e d) . B e c a us e S B S ha s nota l l e ge d a ny ha rm t o c om pe t i t i on in th e m a r k e t, n o re x p la in e d h o w a n y o f th e a c tio n s ta k e n b y H B C c o u ld le a d to m onopol i z a t i on of

tha tm a r ke t , S B S ha s nota l l e ge d a nt i c om pe t i t i ve c onduc ta nd thus ha s nots t a t e d a c l a i m a ga i ns tH B C unde rS e c t i on T w o. 9

I I I . The Se c o nd A m e nde d C o m pl a i nt F ol l ow i ng the di sm i ss al of i t s a m ended com pl ai ntw i th p re j ud i ce , S B S fi l ed a m o tio n f

o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n a lo n g w ith a p r o p o s e d S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p la in t. T he courtcond uct ed a “ ca re ful re vi ew of the prop osed S ec on d A m ended C om pl ai nt ” a nd concl ud ed thatS B S “ ca nn otal l ege f ac t s t o survi ve di sm i ss al . ” O r de rof A ug. 6, 2003, a t3 n. 3 & 5. T he c our tthe r e f or e de ni e d the m ot i on. W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of l e a ve t o a m e nd f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. L ong v. S a t z , 181 F . 3d 1275, 1278 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ; O ’ N e a l v. K e nna m e r , 958 F . 2d 1044, 1047 ( 11th C i r . 1992) . U nde rthe F e de r a l R ul e s of C i vi l P r oc e dur e , l e a ve t o a m e nd21

“ s ha l l be f

r e e l y gi ve n w he n j us t i c e s o r e qui r e s . ” F e d. R . C i v. P . 15( a ) . T he S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s e m p h a s iz e d th a t le a v e to a m e n d m u s t b e g r a n te d ab s e n t a s p e c if ic , s ig n if ic a n t r e a s o n f

o rd e n ia l: In the abse nce of any app ar entor decl ar ed re as on – such as und ue del ay , bad fa i th o r di l at ory m ot i ve on the partof the m ov ant , re peat ed fa i l ure t o cure de f i c i e nc i e s by a m e ndm e nt s pr e vi ous l y a l l ow e d, undue pr e j udi c e t o the oppos i ng pa r ty by vi r tue of a l l ow a nc e of

the a m e ndm e nt , f

ut i l i ty of a m e n d m e n t, e tc .— th e le a v e s o u g h t s h o u ld , a s th e ru le s r e q u ir e , b e f r e e ly g iv e n . F om an v. D avi s, 37 1 U . S . 17 8, 18 2 (19 62 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). In thi s c i rc ui t , these “ sam e s t andards appl y w hen a pl ai nt i ff se eks t o am end aft era ju d g m e n t o f

d is m is s a l h a s b e e n e n te r e d b y a s k in g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to v a c a te its order of di sm i ss al pu rs uantt o F ed. R . C i v. P . 59 (e ). ” T ho m as v. T ow n o f D avi e, 84 7 F . 2d 77 1, 77 3 (11 th C i r. 19 88 ). T he di stri ctcourtfoun d thatthe prop osed a m e n d m e n ts w e r e f

u tile b e c a u s e th e S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p la in t s till f a ile d to s t a t e a c l a i m . O urr e vi e w of the de ni a l of

l e a ve t o a m e nd the r e f

or e turns on our a s s e s s m e ntof

w he the rthe pr opos e d c om pl a i nti nde e d f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m f

or r e lie f . A s w ith th e F ir s t A m e n d e d C o m p la in t, w e m u s t a c c e p t th e f a c ts p le a d e d in the pr opos e d S e c ond A m e nde d C om pl a i nta s true a nd c ons true the m i n the l i ght m ostfa vo rabl e t o the pl ai nt i ff s. A n ant i trustcom pl ai ntneed on l y m ee tan

“ e xc e e di ngl y l ow ” thr e s hol d of s uf f i c i e nc y i n or de rt o s t a t e a c l a i m f orr e l i e f a ndIn its original order, thedistrict court denie d a previous request by SBS to amend the 10 c omp laint and a dd a c on sp ira c y

alle g atio n a fter f

indingthat a

no n-pa rtic ipa nt in th emarke t c ould no t c on sp irewith a

pa rtic ipa nt. Th ec ourt

re lie d u po n o ur statement in A qu atherm

that “ [e]q

ually 22 s ur vi ve a m ot i on t o di s m i s s . C ova d C om m uni c a t i ons C o. v. B e l l S outh C orp. , 299 F . 3d 1272, 1279 ( 11th C i r . 2002) , va c a t e d on othe rgr ounds by 124 S . C t . 1143 ( J a n. 20, 2004) . O f

c our s e , “ [ w ] e m us tnot. . . a s s um e pl a i nt i f f s c a n pr ove f

a c t s not al l eged or thatdefe nd ant s have vi ol at ed the ant i trustl aw s i n w ay s notal l eged. ” Q ual i ty F oo ds, 71 1 F . 2d at99 5. M oreover, even i n o ur l i bera l pl ea di ng re gi m e, an t i tru stp l ai n t i ffs m u stal l eg e fact s i n su p p o rto f each el em en to f an an t i tru st v io la tio n : [T ] he S up re m e C ou rthas i nd i ca t ed thata c om pl ai ntshou l d n otbe di sm i ss ed un l es s i ti s f

ou nd t o b e w ho l l y f

ri vo l ou s. . . . T hi s i s nott o saythatl i bera l pl e a di ng r e qui r e m e nt s ne ga t e the ne e d t o dr a f ta n a nt i trus tc om pl a i nti n a c a r e f ul a nd thought f

ul f a s hi on. A n a nt i trus tc om pl a i ntm us tc om pr e he nd a so-c al l ed pri m a f

ac i e c as e, and eno ug h d at a m ustbe pl ea ded so thatea ch e le m e n t o f

th e a lle g e d a n titru s t v io la tio n c a n b e p r o p e r ly id e n tif ie d . C on cl usory a l l egat i on s thatdefe nd antvi ol at ed the ant i trustl aw s a nd pl ai nt i ff w a s i nj ur e d the r e by w i l l nots ur vi ve a m ot i on t o di s m i s s i f nots uppor t e d by f a c ts c o n s titu tin g a le g itim a te c la im f o rr e lie f . H o w e v e r , th e a lle g e d f a c ts n e e d n o t b e s p e lle d o u t w ith e x a c titu d e , n o rm u s t r e c o v e ry ap p e a rim m in e n t. I d. ( c i t a t i ons a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . W i th the s e pr i nc i pl e s i n m i nd, w e tu rn to th e a lle g a tio n s o f th e p r o p o s e d S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p la in t, w h ic h , in a d d i t i o n t o th e c l a i ms d i s c u s s e d ab o v e , c o n t a i n s th e f u r th e rc l a i m th a tH BC a n d CC c o n s p ir e d to m o n o p o liz e th e m a r k e t f o rS p a n is h - la n g u a g e r a d io a d v e r tis in g in v io la tio n o f

S e c tio n T w o o f

th e S h e rm a n A c t. 10fatal to Aquatherm’s c onspiracy alleg ation is the fac t that no authority exis ts holding a de fenda

nt can c onspire to monopoliz e a ma rket in which it does not compete.” 145 F .3d at 1262 n.4. However, in Aquatherm the plaintiffs did not name ( or even identify ) the alleg ed co- conspirator s who par ticipated in the re levant mar ket. In this case, SB S alleg es a c onspiracy between HB C, a clea r market participant, a

nd CC. Nothing in our ca se law sug g ests that a conspiracy must be limit ed solely

to market pa

rticipants so longas the c onspiracy also involves a mar

ket par ticipant and the non-participa

nt has an incentive to join the conspiracy . Cf. Spectators’ Communi cation Networ k, Inc. v. Colonial Country Club, 253 F.3d 215, 222 (5th Cir. 2001) (“ [W ]e conclude that therec an b esu ff

ic ient evidenc eof

a c omb inatio n o r c on sp ira c y wh en o nec on sp irator

lac ks a direc t interest in prec luding c ompetition, but i s enticed or coerced into knowing ly

curtailing c omp e tition

by ano ther c on sp irator

wh o h a s a

n a nti c omp e titivemotive .” ). In it s b ri e f, CC correctly points out that Spectator s involved a group boycott with multi ple conspirators, thereby g iving the non-participa

nt defendant the power to injure the plaintiff. A ppellee CC B r. at 18-19. However, the c ase turne d upon the ability and motive of the de fenda nt to injure the plaintiff (a nd competition in general), not whether that power

camefrom morethan one c o-conspirator. 23 C ons pi r a c y unde rE l e ve nth C i r c ui tl a w r e qui r e s ( 1) a n a gr e e m e nti n r e s tr a i nt of tr a de ( 2) de l i be r a t e l y e nt e r e d i nt o w i th the s pe c i f i c i nt e ntof

a c hi e vi ng a m onopol y ( 3) w hi c h c oul d ha ve ha d a n a nt i c om pe t i t i ve e f f e c ta nd ( 4) a tl e a s tone o v e r t a c t in f

u r th e r a n c e o f

th e c o n s p ir a c y . U .S . A n c h o r , 7 F .3 d a t 1 0 0 1 . A s w ith the S ec t i on O ne al l egat i on s i n the fi rs tcom pl ai nt , w e a gree w i th the di stri ctcourt tha tS B S ha s nota l l e ge d f a c t s tha tw oul d s uppor ta f i ndi ng of “ a nt i c om pe t i t i ve ef fe ct ” i n the re l evantm arket . T hati s, w e s t i l l do no tbel i eve thatS B S has a l l eged f a c t s s uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor ta f

i ndi ng of ha rm t o c om pe t i t i on. In di sm i ss i ng the previ ou s c om pl ai ntw i th p re j ud i ce , the di stri ctcourtno t ed tha t“ the P l a i nt i f

f ha s a m e nde d i t s c om pl a i ntonc e a l r e a dy . T he C our tga ve the P l ai nt i ff ext ensi ve t i m e t o add re ss the i nj ury t o com pet i t i on el em entatoral a r gum e nt . S t i l l , S B S c oul d onl y pr ovi de one va gue a nd c onc l us [ o] ry a l l e ga t i on ofThe propose d complaint adds significant detail to the alleg ations of unsavory behavior 11 by CC and HBC described in the F irst Amended Complaint as well as additional detail on the market for Spanish-languag e radio adver tising. L arg ely

beca use of this detail, the propose d complaint remains under seal. We therefore do not describe theseadditional fac tual alleg ations with specificity . 24 i nj ury t o g ener al com pet i t i on . ” O rderof Ja n. 31 , 20 03 , at21 . S B S no w ar gu es that it h a s a d d e d la n g u a g e s u f f ic ie n t to o v e r c o m e th is f in d in g b y in c lu d in g s p e c if ic re fe re nces t o “ i nj ury t o com pet i t i on . ” W e di sa gree . C a r e f u l r e v ie w o f

th e p r o p o s e d c o m p la in t r e v e a ls o n ly tw o g e n e r a l, concl usory s t at em ent s abo utcurr enti nj ury t o com pet i t i on . T he com pl ai ntst at es 11 that“ D ef endant s’ expl oi t at i on of thei r dom i nance of tho se m arket s has caused i nj ury t o com pet i t i on by l i m i t i ng al t ernat i ves a vai l abl e t o adv ert i se rs , perf orm er s and the l i st eni ng audi ence . ” P ropo se d C om pl . at¶ 1 08 . T he com pl ai ntal so st at es tha t“ [ de f

e nda nt s ’ ] c onduc tha s a nd w i l l c ont i nue t o a f f e c tpr i c e s f

or ad v ert i sem en t s, th e q u al i ty o f p ro g ram m i n g , an d th e p ri ces fo r ad v ert i sers’ pr oduc t s . ” I d. a t¶ 112. W e not e tha tne i the rs t a t e m e ntc l a i m s tha tpr i c e s ha ve a c tu a l l y r i s e n o rth a tth e q u a n t i ty o f a v a i l ab l e Sp a n i s h - l a n g u a g e a d v e r t i s i n g t i me has a ctual l y dec re as ed. N or i s i tcl ea r w hati s m ea ntby “ l i m i t i ng al t ernat i ves. ” N e i the rof

the s e s t a t e m e nt s a l l e ge s a c tua l ha rm t o c om pe t i t i on. I n a ddi t i on, the c om pl a i ntc ont a i ns s e ve r a l va gue s t a t e m e nt s aboutthe pot e nt i a l ge ne r a l c ons e que nc e s of hy pothe t i c a l m onopol i z a t i on of the S pa ni s h-25

l a ngua ge r a di o m a r ke t : i t“ ul t i m a t e l y r e s ul t s i n s upr a - c om pe t i t i ve pr i c e s f or a d v e r tis e m e n ts a n d r e d u c e s th e n u m b e ro f S p a n is h s ta tio n s a v a ilab le .” I d . a t ¶ 1 1 3 . A r e d u c tio n in th e n u m b e ro f s ta tio n s , in tu rn , “r e d u c e s th e in v e n to ry o f a v a ilab le a dve r t i s e m e nt s a nd hi nde r s the a dve r t i s e r s ’ abi l i ty t o t a r ge tH i s pa ni c s of di f f e r e nt or i gi ns . ” I d. F i na l l y , thi s s i tua t i on “ ul t i m a t e l y r e s ul t s i n hi ghe rpr i c e s f orthe advert i se rs ’ prod uct s, ” “ w i l l l i kel y det er i orat e program m i ng qu al i ty, ” a nd “ af fe ct th e v i ab i l i ty o f

a r t i s t s i n th e ma r k e tp l a c e . ” I d . a t¶¶ 1 1 4 - 1 6 . U n f o r tu n a t e l y , SBS o f f e r s n o s p e c if

ic f a c tu a l a lle g a tio n s to s u p p o r t th e lik e lih o o d o f a n y o f th is h ap p e n in g . R a th e r , S B S m e r e ly a s s u m e s , c o n c lu s o r ily , a p e rn ic io u s m o n o p o ly c apabl e of

l i m i t i ng outputa nd r a i s i ng pr i c e s a nd the n pr oc e e ds t o de s c r i be the other e vi l s thatm i gh tfl ow fr om thi s m on op ol y. W e hol d thatthese concl usory a l l e ga t i ons , uns uppor t e d by s pe c i f i c f a c tua l a l l e ga t i ons , do nots t a t e a c l a i m f or r e l i e f unde rthe a nt i trus tl a w s . B e c a us e S B S , e ve n i n the pr opos e d S e c ond A m e nde d C om pl a i nt , of f e r e d onl y c onc l us ory a l l e ga t i ons of ha rm t o c om pe t i t i on, w e c a nnots a y tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng the m ot i on f or r e c o n s id e r a tio n a n d th e im p lic it m o tio n f o rle a v e to a m e n d th e c o m p la in t.

AF F I RME D.