Opinion ID: 453514
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 12 To establish liability for a boycott conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 4 of the Clayton Act, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that a conspiracy to boycott existed; (2) that the defendants participated in this conspiracy; (3) that the conspiracy had a sufficient nexus with interstate commerce; (4) that the conspiracy injured the plaintiff; and (5) the approximate amount of damages. The Board and the two broker-appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to each of these elements. In reviewing these claims, we apply the deferential standard of review enunciated in Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir.1969) (en banc). If there is substantial evidence in support of the jury verdict--that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fairminded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions--then the jury verdict must be upheld. Id. at 374. We consider the evidence relating to the first four elements in this part and the evidence supporting the damage award in Part IV below.
13 It has been said that a conspiracy need not be hatched in the dark of the night by men in conical hats. Neither must it involve large oligopolies or multibillion dollar corporations. A conspiracy may also be perpetrated by the little man, wearing a business suit and operating in the broad light of day. Though such conspiracies may be less menacing than those of corporate leviathans, they are usually the most difficult to prove. If the antitrust laws are to be a legal command rather than a mere exhortation, we cannot require too high a standard of proof. We must strike a delicate balance between demanding too much and being content with too little. 14 In the present case, Park introduced a variety of evidence in support of his boycott claim. First, he presented evidence of practices by other real estate brokers that discriminated against him and interfered with his attempts to charge a fixed commission. For example, other brokers, when providing purchasers for Action's listings, attempted to raise the commission fee to seven percent of the selling price, despite the fact that the MLS listing by Action clearly specified a flat-fee commission. Conversely, when Action sold listings of other realtors, these brokers sometimes attempted to impose punitive splits: rather than splitting the commission fee on the basis advertised in the MLS (usually, fifty-fifty), they offered Action a small fixed fee. Moreover, Park introduced evidence that other brokers made disparaging remarks about Action, telling prospective customers that Action was not reputable, 14 Rec. at 1089, that it was not equitable, 14 Rec. at 1114, and that it did not do a good job in selling its listings. Homeowners who listed their properties with Action also testified that they had been harassed by anonymous telephone calls. 16 Rec. at 1521-22; 25 Rec. at 3715. Finally, Park introduced statements by other brokers to the effect that they would not show Action's listings, that they would lie to clients that Action's listings were already sold, 14 Rec. at 1218; 15 Rec. at 1278; 25 Rec. at 3714, that they would show them only as a last resort, 16 Rec. at 1481, or that they avoided them like the plague, 11 Rec. at 395. In one instance, there was testimony that a real estate agent had stated that Action would not survive for long because the other brokers in El Paso were going to drive Park out of business. 14 Rec. at 1115, 1127. 15 We find that this evidence, if admissible, was sufficient to sustain a jury finding of conspiracy to boycott. Cf. Penne v. Greater Minneapolis Area Board of Realtors, 604 F.2d 1143, 1148-49 (8th Cir.1979) (finding similar evidence sufficient to withstand motion for summary judgment). Although it is susceptible of different interpretations--including the defendant brokers' view that they were merely competing for customers and attempting to receive the largest possible commissions--it was for the jury to decide which of these alternative interpretations was correct. Southway Theatres, Inc. v. Georgia Theatre Co., 672 F.2d 485, 493-94 (5th Cir.1982). Moreover, although the appellants point to evidence that other brokers sold a large number of Action's listings, 10 this argument goes merely to the weight of the evidence. It does not conclusively show that the defendants were innocent of conspiring to boycott the plaintiff. 16 The appellants contend that since the plaintiff relied on evidence of parallel conduct rather than on direct evidence of a boycott conspiracy, he was required to show that this parallel conduct was not in the realtors' self-interest. This view is not without merit. Although, as part of a larger case, evidence of consciously parallel business behavior is circumstantial evidence from which a conspiracy can be inferred, standing alone, it has no significant probative force where the defendants can fully explain how independent business judgment would have led to such a refusal. Southway Theatres, 672 F.2d at 494; see also Transource International v. Trinity Industries, 725 F.2d 274, 281 (5th Cir.1984). Unless an antitrust plaintiff offers evidence that tends to exclude the possibility that the [defendants] were acting independently, Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752, ----, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 1471, 79 L.Ed.2d 775 (1984), an inference of conspiracy is unreasonable. Southway Theatres, 672 F.2d at 494; see also Theatre Enterprises v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 346 U.S. 537, 541, 74 S.Ct. 257, 259, 98 L.Ed. 273 (1954); Pan-Islamic Trade Corp. v. Exxon Corp., 632 F.2d 539, 559 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 927, 102 S.Ct. 427, 70 L.Ed.2d 236 (1981); Aviation Specialties, Inc. v. United Technologies Corp., 568 F.2d 1186, 1192 (5th Cir.1978). 11 17 Here, the appellants claim that given Action's low commissions, it was more lucrative for them to concentrate on selling other listings. Moreover, they claim that it was in their self-interest to attempt to raise the commission if they did become involved in selling an Action home and to dissuade potential clients from listing with Action. In their view, since all of these actions can be explained in terms of their individual self-interest, the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of showing that these actions were not the product of independent business decisions. 18 Although this argument has some force, in the present context we ultimately disagree. Here, we are not faced with evidence that the defendants merely refused to enter into an unprofitable business relationship. Instead, the plaintiff introduced evidence that other El Paso brokers had disparaged him, had attempted to discriminate against him in the division of commissions, and had interfered with his attempts to charge a flat fee. Given both the separate jury finding that a price-fixing conspiracy existed and the evidence of widespread parallel conduct, we believe that this is a setting where common action bespeaks accord. See supra note 11. We hold that the evidence of parallel conduct, while not conclusive on the existence of a conspiracy, at least presented a jury question. 12

19 Approximately one year after establishing Action Real Estate, Park applied to be a member of the Board of Realtors and was promptly admitted. Shortly thereafter, he applied for membership in the MLS and was also admitted. Park claims that despite this evidence of cooperation, the Board participated in the conspiracy to boycott his business. 20 In support of this claim, Park alleges that he was denied specific benefits of Board membership--in particular, the right to have commission charges split in accordance with the MLS listings, the right to be present when contracts were presented, and the right to be free of disparagement and harassment by his fellow Board members. In our view, these allegations, without more, do not implicate the Board in the conspiracy. The Board is less than the sum of its parts: the fact that some members of the Board participated in the boycott conspiracy does not imply that the Board itself participated in the conspiracy. To support such an inference, Park needed to introduce evidence that the Board participated in or condoned the alleged rules violations. For example, Park could have attempted to show that he had brought ethics complaints concerning the alleged rules violations and that the Board had ignored or otherwise acted in bad faith on these complaints. Except in one instance, however, Park failed to bring any ethics complaints. In that instance, the Professional Standards Committee of the Board tentatively found in Park's favor, and referred the case to the Board's Court of Ethics. 13 This conduct hardly implicates the Board in the conspiracy; indeed, it indicates the reverse. 21 In contrast to Park, his fellow Board members were not so reticent about bringing ethics complaints. During Park's first two years of membership in the Board, four complaints were brought against him. Park claims that the Professional Standards Committee of the Board discriminated against him in the adjudication of these complaints and thereby participated in the boycott conspiracy. 22 After a careful examination of the record, we do not find substantial evidence to support this charge. Of the four complaints, the Professional Standards Committee found in Park's favor in one instance, found against Park in two instances, and tentatively found against Park in the final instance but referred the complaint to the Court of Ethics for final action, where it was stayed pending the outcome of the present antitrust suit. Park did not present any evidence that other El Paso Board members publicized his two ethics violations in an effort to dissuade customers from doing business with him. In the two instances where Park was found in violation of the rules, he received written reprimands by letter, but was not punished further. In one of these instances, the member who brought the complaint also received a letter of reprimand for his conduct during the transaction. Although Park strenuously objects to the Committee's findings of misconduct, he failed to present substantial evidence that the Committee acted in bad faith or abused its procedures in order to find him guilty. The only evidence presented by Park in this connection was a taped conversation with Raymond Baca, the Vice-Chairman of the Committee, who stated there was no love lost between Park and several Committee members and that the odds were stacked against [Park]. 11 Rec. at 409. During the same conversation, however, Baca stated that most of the Committee members were honest and that Park had gotten a fair hearing on the complaints filed against him. Id. at 409-10. We do not believe that this evidence, standing alone, is sufficient to support the jury's verdict that the Board participated in the boycott conspiracy. Two reprimands do not an antitrust action make. 23 Finally, Park argues that the Committee's adoption of a prior offense rule in March of 1978 was specifically directed against him and was designed to force him from the Board. Under this rule, Board members who had committed two or more prior ethical violations could have their cases sent to the Court of Ethics for possible suspension or expulsion from the Board. Pursuant to this rule, the Committee referred the fourth complaint brought against Park to the Court for further proceedings, since Park had been found guilty of two previous ethical infractions. The Court, however, did not take any further action against Park, but instead stayed the proceedings during the pendency of the present suit. Except for the approximate coincidence in time of the complaints brought against Park and the adoption of the prior offense rule, there is no evidence to suggest that this rule was adopted in order to force Park from the Board. Park's attempts to characterize the rule as the Park rule, see Appellee's Brief at 23, are without support in the record and are pure speculation, as is his claim that had he not brought the present suit, the Court would have acted under the rule to suspend or expel him from the Board. 24 Because we find that the jury's verdict against the Board was not supported by sufficient evidence, we reverse this portion of the verdict and render judgment for the Board.
25 The jury also found that five realty companies had participated in the boycott conspiracy, two of which are presently before us on appeal. In contrast to the jury's verdict regarding the Board, we find that the verdict against these two appellants was supported by sufficient evidence. There is evidence in the record that a salesman for one of the companies told a prospective customer that he would show the customer's house only as a last resort if it were listed with Action. 16 Rec. at 1481. Moreover, the customer testified that the salesman kept Action listings at the back of his MLS listings book. Id. at 1480. With respect to the other company, there was testimony that one of its salespeople disparaged Action to a homeowner, telling the homeowner that Action was not going to survive for very long because the other brokers in El Paso would drive it out of business. 14 Rec. at 1114-15. Although this evidence is sparse, we believe that a reasonable jury in the exercise of impartial judgment could conclude that these two realty companies were participants in the boycott conspiracy.
26 The appellants next argue that Park failed to introduce sufficient evidence that the boycott conspiracy affected interstate commerce. We disagree. Under McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans, 444 U.S. 232, 100 S.Ct. 502, 62 L.Ed.2d 441 (1980), an antitrust plaintiff need demonstrate only a substantial effect on interstate commerce generated by [the defendants'] brokerage activity. Id. at 242, 100 S.Ct. at 509. He need not make the more particularized showing of an effect on interstate commerce caused by the alleged conspiracy.... Id. As the Supreme Court explained, If establishing jurisdiction required a showing that the unlawful conduct itself had an effect on interstate commerce, jurisdiction would be defeated by a demonstration that the alleged restraint failed to have its intended anticompetitive effect. This is not the rule of our cases. Id. at 243, 100 S.Ct. at 509. 27 Here, the plaintiff introduced substantial evidence that the actions of El Paso real estate brokers had a significant effect on interstate commerce through the financing of real estate loans, the furnishing of title insurance, and the advertising of properties for sale. This is precisely the kind of involvement with interstate commerce that the Court found sufficient in McClain. Id. at 245, 100 S.Ct. at 510-11. Ultimately, whatever stimulates or retards the volume of residential sales, or has an impact on the purchase price, affects the demand for financing and title insurance, those two commercial activities that on this record are shown to have occurred in interstate commerce. Id. at 246, 100 S.Ct. at 511. Unlike in Alabama Homeowners v. Findahome Corp., 640 F.2d 670 (5th Cir.1981), where the alleged conspiracy involved only two firms, neither of which was shown to have any involvement with interstate commerce, id. at 674, here the conspiracy was alleged to have involved a large part of the El Paso realty market. In a conspiracy case, the plaintiff need not show that the business of each individual member of the conspiracy had a substantial effect on interstate commerce, as long as the coconspirators in general had such an effect. This is what the jury implicitly found here. 14
28 Finally, the appellants challenge the sufficiency of the plaintiff's proof that he was in fact injured by the boycott conspiracy. As discussed below, we have serious questions regarding the amount of damages awarded by the jury; in brief, we do not believe that the jury's award of $927,559 had a reasonable basis. We think it clear, however, that the plaintiff adequately established the fact of injury. From the plaintiff's evidence, the jury was entitled to infer that the plaintiff would have attracted more listings, sold more properties, and earned more profits had the boycott not existed. This being so, the plaintiff did not need to prove that he had been injured by any particular instance of a refusal to deal. 15