Casey Hyland v. HomeServices of America, Inc.
771 F.3d 310
6th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Christopher and Mystic Burnette sue on behalf of a Kentucky residential real estate class (2001-2005) alleging a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy to set a 6% real estate commission.
- Defendants include McMahan Company, Semonin Realtors, Rector-Hayden Realtors, and HomeServices of America affiliates; some defendants settled, others remain in suit.
- The district court granted summary judgment and excluded expert opinions; the class theory and anti-competitive pricing claims were at issue.
- The Rebate Ban regulation by Kentucky Real Estate Commission (KREC) and its abolition after DOJ challenges provide contextual backdrop for alleged price-fixing through inducements/commission practices.
- The court affirmed the district court’s rulings, addressing (1) summary judgment, (2) expert testimony limits, and (3) corporate/alter-ego liability of HSA for subsidiaries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court err in granting summary judgment on §1 claim? | Burnette contends sufficient evidence of conspiracy. | Defendants argue evidence is insufficient to show a conspiracy. | Yes (affirmed) – circumstantial evidence fails to exclude independent action. |
| Does circumstantial evidence support an antitrust conspiracy in this case? | Circumstantial evidence (plus factors) shows price fixing. | Parallel pricing can be independent; not conclusive of conspiracy. | No (affirmed) – evidence insufficient to negate independent conduct. |
| Did the district court err in limiting expert testimony on ultimate issue? | Experts should opine on conspiracy likelihood. | Legal conclusions excluded; experts may not testify on ultimate issue. | No (affirmed) – district court acted within discretion. |
| Is HSA liable for acts of its subsidiaries (alter ego/alter-ego piercing)? | HSA controlled subsidiaries and fostered anticompetitive policy. | No show of domination; no piercing of the veil. | No (affirmed) – no basis for alter ego or derivative liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (requires evidence that rules out plausible independent conduct to survive summary judgment)
- Re/Max Int’l, Inc. v. Realty One, Inc., 173 F.3d 995 (6th Cir. 1999) (circumstantial evidence must exclude independent action to infer conspiracy)
- In re Baby Food Antitrust Litig., 166 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 1999) (direct evidence must be explicit; circumstantial evidence considered with factors)
- Spirit Airlines v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 431 F.3d 917 (6th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment not per se barred in antitrust context; Matsushita standard guides)