Opinion ID: 167719
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Parker immunity

Text: 40 Generally, a state's anticompetitive actions are immune from civil antitrust laws. Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 350-52, 63 S.Ct. 307, 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943). This federalism-based state immunity can, under certain circumstances, apply to municipalities. Cmty. Commc'ns Co. v. City of Boulder, Colo., 455 U.S. 40, 51, 102 S.Ct. 835, 70 L.Ed.2d 810 (1982). To be protected, a municipality must be authorized by the State pursuant to state policy to displace competition with regulation or monopoly public service. Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire, 471 U.S. 34, 39, 105 S.Ct. 1713, 85 L.Ed.2d 24 (1985) (internal quotation omitted). This requires that the state legislature authorize the challenged action and intend to displace competition with regulation. Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs, Co. v. City of Lawrence, Kan., 927 F.2d 1111, 1120 (10th Cir.1991). 41 In this case, the State of Oklahoma authorized the creation of urban renewal authorities. 11 OKLA. STAT. TIT. §§ 38-101 to -123. The district court held that the authorizing statutes clearly contemplate anticompetitive activity. (Appellants' App., Ex. 3 at 23.) In support, the district court cited 11 OKLA. STAT. TIT. § 38-108(a) which gives an urban renewal authority the power [t]o undertake and carry out the urban renewal projects within its area of operation . . . and to make and execute contracts . . . necessary or convenient to the exercise of its powers under this article. 42 We agree with the district court's analysis. In an analogous case, Buckley Construction, Inc. v. Shawnee Civic & Cultural Development Authority, we upheld state immunity for a development authority that coordinated bidding under the Oklahoma Public Competitive Bidding Act of 1974, 61 OKLA. STAT. TIT. §§ 101-136 (1981). 933 F.2d 853, 856 (10th Cir.1991). We held the Competitive Bidding Act clearly contemplates anticompetitive activity, in part because the statute gives the public agency discretion to reject any or all bids if it determines that is in the best interest of the State of Oklahoma. Id. Like the Oklahoma Competitive Bidding Act at issue in Buckley Construction, the statute at issue in this case gives urban renewal authorities the discretion to make contracts necessary or convenient to the exercise of its powers. This language has a foreseeable anticompetitive effect no less than the Competitive Bidding Act which was found to confer immunity in Buckley Construction. Thus, the Renewal Authority was not required to select the lowest bidder for the redevelopment contract if it was not convenient to the exercise of its powers. Consequently, Douglas, as the executive director of the Renewal Authority, is entitled to Parker immunity, regardless of anticompetitive results or intent, assuming her actions were in furtherance of her Renewal Authority responsibilities. 43 Bricktown, Inc. alleges Douglas was acting outside of her official responsibilities by engaging in bid-rigging. However, no facts support Bricktown, Inc.'s claim, and there is no evidence Douglas had a personal interest in the contract being awarded to the Developers. Moreover, the city council approved her actions by adopting resolutions in support of the Developers' proposal. Bricktown, Inc.'s naked allegations of a bid-rigging conspiracy do not render Douglas' actions outside of her official duties and thus do not deprive her of immunity. 44