Opinion ID: 4198547
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiff’s Sherman Act Claims

Text: Finally, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint asserts a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 3. The district court concluded that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under either § 2 or § 3, but on appeal, Plaintiff only challenges the district court’s holding as to § 3. Plaintiff’s argument is clearly meritless because Plaintiff claims that a restraint of trade occurred in Alabama, not in a “Territory of the United States.” 15 U.S.C. § 3 provides: Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, is declared illegal. 15 U.S.C. § 3 (emphasis added). Plaintiff asserts that since the term “territory” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as “[a] geographical area included within a particular government’s jurisdiction,” see TERRITORY, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014), Alabama should therefore be considered a “Territory of the United States.” But “Territory of the United States” is a term of art that does not include Alabama or any other state of the United States. See United States v. MaldonadoBurgos, 844 F.3d 339, 342 (1st Cir. 2016) (“The Sherman Act treats territories 14 Case: 16-15240 Date Filed: 08/24/2017 Page: 15 of 16 differently than states”); See also People of Puerto Rico v. Shell Co. (P.R.), 302 U.S. 253, 259 (1937) (holding that, prior to the adoption of the Puerto Rico Constitution, Puerto Rico was included within the term “territory” in § 3); Cordova & Simonpietri Ins. Agency Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank N.A., 649 F.2d 36, 37 (1st Cir. 1981) (holding that after “the change in Puerto Rico’s status from ‘territory’ to ‘Commonwealth,’ section 3 no longer applies to Puerto Rico.”). This is further evidenced by the juxtaposition of a “Territory or Territories” with a “State or States” within the statutory text. Alabama is not a “Territory of the United States” under 15 U.S.C. § 3, and thus Plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief under that section. 5 5 Again, Plaintiff has not challenged on appeal the district court’s conclusion that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 2. Thus, Plaintiff has waived this issue. United States v. Duboc, 694 F.3d 1223, 1226 n.1 (11th Cir. 2012). And even if we were to consider the adequacy of Plaintiff’s pleadings as they relate to § 2, Plaintiff has failed to plead a violation of the Sherman Act under § 2. A violation of § 2 requires Plaintiff to “prove (1) that the defendant has engaged in predatory or anticompetitive conduct with (2) a specific intent to monopolize and (3) a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power.” Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 456 (1993). “[T]o adequately plead dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power, the plaintiff must alleged that the defendant is ‘close to achieving monopoly power’ in the relevant product market.” Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. Estée Lauder Companies, Inc., 797 F.3d 1248, 1263 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting U.S. Anchor Mfg., Inc. v. Rule Indus., Inc., 7 F.3d 968, 995 (11th Cir.1993)). Here, Plaintiff provides no delineation of the relevant geographical or product market, and no factual allegations supporting that Defendants are “close to achieving monopoly power.” Id. There is no mention of any Defendant or combination of Defendants’ market share, nor any other factual support for the allegation that Defendants had achieved or probably would achieve market power. 15 Case: 16-15240 Date Filed: 08/24/2017 Page: 16 of 16 D. Plaintiff’s Request for a Declaratory Judgment The district court held that since Plaintiff failed to state a federal claim, the court had no independent jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s request for a declaratory judgment. See Stuart Weitzman, LLC v. Microcomputer Res., Inc., 542 F.3d 859, 861–62 (11th Cir. 2008). Because the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiff’s federal claims, the district court did not err in also concluding it lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s request for a declaratory judgment.