409 F. App'x 362
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- This appeal challenges a district court grant of summary judgment in a Sherman Act §1 conspiracy case.
- Appellants alleged appellees used the 2003 NPC Report to manipulate market perceptions and justify high gas prices.
- District court relied on appellees’ undisputed facts and considered appellants’ evidence only if supported by the record.
- Appellants did not file a proper statute or rule-7(h) response, but district court treated appellees’ statement as admitted only where supported by the record.
- Court reviews de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment and whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists, applying Matsushita and related standards.
- Court affirms the district court, finding no genuine issue that appellees conspired to fix prices, even assuming parallel conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact of conspiracy. | Appellants contend NPC report evidence shows coordination. | Appellees deny coordination and argue independent actions. | No genuine issue; no sufficient inference of conspiracy. |
| Whether the district court properly treated undisputed facts when appellants failed to file a 7(h) statement. | Moundridge approach allows rebuttal despite no 7(h) filing. | District court properly limited to supported undisputed facts. | District court properly treated undisputed facts and considered appellants’ evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (burden to negate possibility of conspiracy requires showing is not merely possible)
- Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1984) (summary judgment in antitrust requires exclusion of independent action evidence)
- Ambrosini v. Labarraque, 966 F.2d 1464 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (evidence must tend to exclude independent conduct)
- Merit Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 569 F.2d 666 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (evidence must create genuine issue of material fact)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Jackson, 610 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (de novo review of summary judgment standard in antitrust matters)
- Jackson v. Finnegan, 101 F.3d 145 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (standard for treating undisputed facts in summary judgment)