414 F. App'x 334
2d Cir.2011Background
- Astra Media Group, LLC sued Clear Channel Taxi Media, LLC and the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) in federal court in SDNY.
- The district court dismissed Astra’s Sherman Act predatory pricing claim against Clear Channel under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The district court also granted summary judgment on Astra’s federal discrimination claim; remaining state-law claims were non-removable.
- The court noted the predatory-pricing claim requires showing prices below an appropriate measure of costs and alleged below-cost pricing only on a single contract.
- The complaint provided limited, conclusory assertions about Disney bid pricing and costs, lacking specific figures or cost structure.
- Because all federal claims were dismissed early, the district court should remand the state-law claims to state court; the Second Circuit vacated and remanded accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predatory pricing plea sufficiency under Sherman Act | Astra Media asserts below-cost pricing on Disney bid; alleges industry-standard cost is $170 | Clear Channel contends pricing below cost not plausibly pled and single contract insufficient | The claim is inadequately pled; dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) but affirmed on this point. |
| Whether removal was proper given federal and state claims | Removal based on federal Sherman Act claim; disposition affects removability | With federal claims dismissed, remaining state claims were non-removable | District court’s removal/disposition allowed remand of state-law claims. |
| Whether district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over unsettled state-law claims | State-law claims involve unsettled issues (Iqbal standard, tortious interference) warranting federal consideration | Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction where federal claims are eliminated | Court should remand state-law claims to state court; discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction declined. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 F.3d 209 (U.S. 1993) (predatory pricing requires proof prices below costs)
- Buffalo Courier-Express, Inc. v. Buffalo Evening News, Inc., 601 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1979) (sacrifice of short-run profits part of predation analysis)
- Morgan v. Ponder, 892 F.2d 1355 (8th Cir. 1989) (low-price evidence for predation must show more than a single customer/contract)
- Guard-Life Corp. v. S. Parker Hardware Manufacturing Corp., 50 N.Y.2d 183 (N.Y. 1980) (tortious interference can occur without breach of contract or with it)
- Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc., 88 N.Y.2d 413 (N.Y. 1996) (contract-based tort claims—breach element considerations under New York law)
- Israel v. Wood Dolson Co., 1 N.Y.2d 116 (N.Y. 1956) (preceding decision on essential elements for tortious interference claims)
- Oliveira v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 251 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2001) (unsettled questions of state law influence supplemental jurisdiction decisions)
- Fay v. South Colonie Central School District, 802 F.2d 21 (2d Cir. 1986) (review of ancillary state-law issue handling in diversity-equivalent contexts)
- Valencia v. Lee, 316 F.3d 299 (2d Cir. 2003) (reversing district court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction on unsettled questions of New York law)
- Giordano v. City of New York, 274 F.3d 740 (2d Cir. 2001) (considerations on when to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims)
- United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (U.S. 1966) (sets framework for supplemental jurisdiction analysis)