NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 23a0043n.06

Case No. 22-5539

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

CONNIE LYNN REGULI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JAMES P. CATALANO; ROBERT 

HASSELL; DAVID A. KOZLOWSKI, 

Defendants-Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF 

TENNESSEE

OPINION

Before: CLAY, WHITE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Attorney Connie Reguli appeared before a disciplinary panel for

alleged violations of Tennessee’s rules of professional ethics. She alleges the process violated the 

Sherman Antitrust Act because the attorneys on the panel were her competitors. The district court 

dismissed her complaint. We affirm.

State disciplinary counsel filed a petition against Reguli alleging six ethical violations. 

A panel of three lawyers—the appellees—heard her case. See Tenn. R. Pro. Conduct 9 §§ 3, 6.4. 

Reguli alleges the panel members committed numerous procedural missteps, such as setting 

unattainable deadlines and arbitrarily limiting evidence. The crux of her complaint is that the panel

members’ “arbitrary and prejudicial” actions, coupled with their “inten[t] to restrict the 

marketplace,” violated federal antitrust laws. R. 1, Pg. ID 26.
Case No. 22-5539, Reguli v. Catalano

- 2 -

The district court dismissed her complaint for failure to allege an antitrust injury. Reguli 

v. Catalano, No. 3:21-cv-00713 (WDC), 2022 WL 1721042, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. May 26, 2022). 

Reguli timely appealed.

To allege an antitrust injury, a plaintiff must claim “market-wide injury,” not mere 

individual injury. Care Heating & Cooling, Inc. v. Am. Standard, Inc., 427 F.3d 1008, 1014 (6th 

Cir. 2005) (“Individual injury, without accompanying market-wide injury, does not fall within the 

protections of the Sherman Act.”). That’s because the antitrust laws protect “competition not 

competitors.” NicSand, Inc. v. 3M Co., 507 F.3d 442, 451 (6th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (quoting 

Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 488 (1977)).

For example, in a similar case, a doctor alleged that he was subjected to an “unwarranted 

and unfair investigation” meant to restrain trade and reduce competition. Semertzides v. Bethesda 

N. Hosp., 608 F. App’x 378, 378 (6th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Applying the market-wide-injury

rule, we held that the doctor had failed to allege an antitrust violation because he alleged only an 

“[i]ndividual injury, without accompanying market-wide injury.” Id. at 379 (alteration in original)

(quoting Care Heating, 427 F.3d at 1012).

Like the doctor in Semertzides, Reguli alleges a fundamentally unfair investigation, but

without any market-wide effect. So she similarly fails to allege an antitrust injury. 

Reguli disagrees, citing North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, 574 U.S. 

494 (2015). But there was a market-wide injury in that case: the state dental ethics board stopped 

all non-dentists across the state from offering teeth-whitening services. Id. at 501. Whereas here, 

Reguli doesn’t allege any such market-wide impact. So North Carolina State Board doesn’t help 

Reguli.
Case No. 22-5539, Reguli v. Catalano

- 3 -

Finally, Reguli argues that the district court ignored her claim for declaratory relief. But 

because Reguli hasn’t stated a claim, the district court wasn’t required to address her request for 

relief, nor must we address the board members’ immunity defense.

We affirm.