Opinion ID: 201445
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lack of Substantial Impact on Interstate Commerce

Text: 69 Defendants finally argue that the jurisdictional requirements of the Sherman Act are not satisfied here because the activities described in the complaint do not substantially affect interstate commerce. See McLain v. Real Estate Bd. of New Orleans, Inc., 444 U.S. 232, 242, 100 S.Ct. 502, 62 L.Ed.2d 441 (1980). 70 This argument is frivolous in its own terms. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, some of whom are global insurers, have invested the extra profits from their monopoly scheme outside of Puerto Rico and made it more difficult for the plaintiffs to purchase, repair, and maintain cars obtained in interstate commerce. In light of the allegation that some 1.5 million to 2 million vehicle owners in Puerto Rico are policyholders of the compulsory insurance, as a matter of practical economics, the complaint, at least for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes, states a not insubstantial effect on the interstate commerce sufficient for the Sherman Act. Cordova & Simonpietri Ins. Agency Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 649 F.2d 36, 45 (1st Cir.1981) (quoting McLain, 444 U.S. at 246, 100 S.Ct. 502).