Opinion ID: 374813
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First Claim

Text: 40 Codding argues that his first claim adequately states a cause of action for attempted monopolization under Sherman Two and for a combination in restraint of trade under Sherman One. In his complaint, Codding has listed seven examples of predatory behavior committed by Hahn which allegedly support the first claim. 17 41 Codding does not dispute Hahn's contention that some of these acts are immune from antitrust liability because (they) represent nothing more than the receipt of the benefits flowing from governmental action successfully solicited and induced by Hahn. All Codding does is to suggest that this court disregard Hahn's arguments on this point. We decline. The predatory behavior in paragraphs (b) through (e) consists of nothing more than the benefits incident to Hahn's selection as the developer of the downtown Santa Rosa project. Not only does Codding not attempt an explanation as to how these activities could support an antitrust claim, but he also fails to explain why Hahn's activities would not be protected under Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 63 S.Ct. 307, 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943), and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. 42 This leaves three other allegations of predatory activity under the first claim: 43 (a) eliminating competition among themselves; 44 (f) selling land below cost to potential operators of retail stores; and 45 (g) refusing to consider competitors of Sears. 46 Codding does not even bother to discuss the first or the last allegation in his briefs. The elimination of competition is an essential ingredient in any antitrust action. Nevertheless, there must still be some factual basis for such a charge. Codding's complaint, even when considered in its entirety, fails to show how he has standing to base an antitrust claim on the last allegation. The only allegation of predatory activity which can support Codding's antitrust claim is (f) which deals with sales below cost. Since this also forms the basis of Codding's third claim, we will reserve our discussion on that issue until we reach the third claim.