Opinion ID: 2322955
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Intervention in Antitrust Actions in Maine

Text: [¶8] Under Maine statutory law, the Attorney General may seek injunctive relief by commencing a proceeding[] in equity to prevent and restrain [antitrust] violations. 10 M.R.S. § 1104(2). The statute also authorizes [a]ny person... injured directly or indirectly in its business or property by an antitrust violation to sue for the injury in a separate civil action for treble damages and reasonable costs and fees. 10 M.R.S. § 1104(1). The statute does not, however, authorize private entities to file complaints seeking injunctive relief. See id. [¶9] CMMC acknowledges that no Maine statute authorizes it to seek injunctive relief against the MaineHealth entities as a remedy for antitrust violations. CMMC does not argue that we have allowed or authorized such intervention in the past. [3] Nor does it cite to any supporting authority from other jurisdictions in which the statutes similarly permit only the government to seek injunctive relief. Nonetheless, CMMC argues that it should have been permitted to intervene, either of right or permissively, in the antitrust claim brought by the Attorney General seeking injunctive relief. We address each ground for intervention separately.
[¶10] Pursuant to Rule 24(a), intervention is permitted of right in either of two circumstances: Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties. The first ground for intervention is inapplicable here because no statute confers an unconditional right to intervene. M.R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1). Thus, the question for our consideration is whether CMMC satisfied the requirements of the second ground for intervention of right, which is allowed when, on timely application: (1) [a party] claims an interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and (2) [the party] is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede [its] ability to protect [its] interest, and (3) [its] interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties to the action. Doe, 495 A.2d at 1237; see M.R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). [¶11] As one of the competitors of the MaineHealth entities, CMMC has an interest related to the antitrust action, but CMMC did not demonstrate that the disposition of the antitrust action would impair or impede its ability to protect its own interests through independent litigation. See M.R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). Maine antitrust law allows any person injured in business or property, whether directly or indirectly, to sue for the injury in a civil action and seek treble damages. 10 M.R.S. § 1104(1). [4] Only the Attorney General, however, is authorized to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain [antitrust] violations. Id. § 1104(2). [¶12] Thus, as the United States Supreme Court has held with regard to comparable federal antitrust law, private and public actions were designed to be cumulative, not mutually exclusive. Sam Fox Publ'g Co. v. United States, 366 U.S. 683, 689 (1961) (quotation marks omitted). Because private parties are not bound by the government litigation, any liability to private parties may be determined separately under Maine's statutory framework. See 10 M.R.S. § 1104(1), (2); Sam Fox Publ'g Co., 366 U.S. at 689-90. Thus, there is no entitlement in a private party to intervene of right in a State antitrust enforcement action in Maine unless the party provides evidence of bad faith or malfeasance on the part of the government such that intervention is necessary to protect the public's interests. See 10 M.R.S. § 1104(1), (2); Sam Fox Publ'g Co., 366 U.S. at 689; United States v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 534 F.2d 113, 117 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11872, at -3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2000); United States v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc., 563 F. Supp. 642, 648-49 (D. Del. 1983); United States v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 349 F. Supp. 22, 26-27 (D. Conn. 1972). [¶13] CMMC argues that the federal authorities to which we have referred above are now outdated because Congress has amended its statutes to allow for intervention in government antitrust cases. See 15 U.S.C.S. § 16 (LexisNexis 1985 & Supp. 2011). Maine's antitrust enforcement statute has not been amended, however, since 1991. See P.L. 1991, ch. 137, §§ 2, 3 (effective October 9, 1991) (codified at 10 M.R.S. § 1104 (2010)). Because the Maine statute authorizes only one partythe Attorney Generalto bring an enforcement action seeking injunctive relief, see 10 M.R.S. § 1104(2), and does not authorize private intervention, the federal cases cited above remain persuasive regarding the limitations on private intervention in Maine. [¶14] Because CMMC made no evidentiary showing of bad faith, collusion, or other malfeasance, intervention of right was properly denied.
[¶15] Pursuant to Rule 24(b), a person who files a timely application may be permitted to intervene in an action when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common. In making this discretionary determination, the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties. M.R. Civ. P. 24(b). [¶16] Here, the court determined that joining a private cause of action to the State's enforcement claim would unduly burden the proceedings, and the court supplied an alternative method for CMMC to participate in the enforcement action by providing oral comments and written submissions to the court. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying permissive intervention. Although CMMC contends that it occupies an exceptional position as a competitor of the MaineHealth entities, its situation is not unique. The MaineHealth entities have other competitors for cardiac care, and all are entitled to participate in the State's enforcement action as permitted by the court, or to bring an independent claim for damages, see 10 M.R.S. § 1104(1); 15 U.S.C.S. § 15, or both. The entry is: Order denying CMMC's motion to intervene affirmed. Business and Consumer Docket docket no. BCD-CV-2011-8 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY