Opinion ID: 2826960
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Minnesota Antitrust Claim

Text: Insulate appeals the dismissal of its claim under the Minnesota Antitrust Law of 1971, Minn. Stat. § 325D.49 et seq., contending the district court erroneously concluded Insulate, as a non-citizen of Minnesota, could not bring this claim. Assuming without deciding Insulate can bring a claim under Minnesota antitrust law, we affirm the dismissal because Insulate failed to state its claim adequately. See Phipps v. FDIC, 417 F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 2005) (“We may affirm the district court’s dismissal on any basis supported by the record.”). Because “Minnesota antitrust law is generally interpreted consistently with federal antitrust law,” Lorix v. Crompton Corp., 736 N.W.2d 619, 626 (Minn. 2007) (en banc), and Insulate agrees our analysis of its federal claims also applies to its Minnesota claim, Insulate’s Minnesota antitrust claim also must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.8