Opinion ID: 1190367
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: B & H's New Arguments

Text: B & H devoted large portions of its Opening Brief and its Reply Brief to arguing, for the first time in this case, that the principal problem with the SUPPORT network is that it amounts to a price-fixing conspiracy. See Appellant Br. at 21 (All of these providers in the Support Network have come together and agreed to accept a fee schedule, so there is a horizontal price fixing agreement . . .); Appellant Br. at 27-28 (stating that `[n]aked' agreements among competitors to fix prices are per se illegal and that [t]he Support [Network] is per se illegal); Reply Br. at 7 (stating the SUPPORT contracts are primarily price fixing agreements); id. at 10 (stating the SUPPORT contracts just happen to be primarily price fixing agreements). Nowhere below did B & H describe the SUPPORT network as a conspiracy to fix prices. The phrase price fixing does not appear anywhere in B & H's Amended Complaint. [8] J.A. at 33-37 (Am.Compl.). Rather, the entire case focused on whether the SUPPORT network was an exclusive-dealing arrangement that potentially foreclosed a substantial portion of the market. B&H claims that its price-fixing arguments are not new because courts analyze both price fixing and exclusive dealing under § 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits unreasonable restraints of trade, Reply Br. at 7-8, but this argument manifestly lacks merit and borders on bad faith. Price fixing and exclusive dealing are two entirely separate theories of antitrust liability, with vastly different applicable standards and analyses relying on very different kinds of evidence. We generally `cannot consider an issue not passed on below,' and [w]e exercise our discretion to rule on an issue not decided below only in `exceptional cases.' St. Marys Foundry, Inc. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 332 F.3d 989, 995-96 (6th Cir.2003) (quotations omitted). This is not such an exceptional case. Similarly, on appeal, B&H also relies heavily, for the first time, on Statements 8 and 9 from the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission's Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care (Aug.1996), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/0000.pdf (Health Care Enforcement Guidelines). Although it is not improper for a party to cite a case or an authority to an appellate court for the first time, see Costantino v. TRW, Inc., 13 F.3d 969, 981 n. 13 (6th Cir.1994), Statements 8 and 9, and particularly B & H's use of them, [9] primarily concern a price-fixing theory of liability, which B&H did not assert below. We therefore decline to address B & H's arguments that, under Statements 8 and 9, the SUPPORT network is an illegal agreement to fix prices because B&H did not present this theory of antitrust liability to the district court. See St. Marys Foundry, 332 F.3d at 995-96.