Haygood v. Begue, 5:13-cv-00335

This case concerns a federal Rule 12(b)(6)/Rule 12(c) motion by Dr. H.O. Blackwood seeking dismissal of Haygood plaintiffs’ claims.
Plaintiffs allege §1983, Sherman Act, defamation, and Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act violations arising from a state dental-board proceeding that revoked Dr. Haygood’s license.
The Louisiana Dental Board’s revocation followed a three-year investigation into allegedly over-diagnosing periodontal disease.
The Louisiana Fourth Circuit identified due-process concerns due to dual roles of board counsel as prosecutor and adjudicator; this led to remand and consolidation in state courts.
Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Dr. Blackwood personally and in his official capacity, alleging conspiracy and involvement in the proceedings.
The court ultimately granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, holding the §1983 claims prescribed and the Sherman Act, defamation, and unfair-trade-practice claims fail under Twombly/Iqbal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the §1983 claims are timely and prescribed	Haygood contends timely filing; conspiracy tolling interrupts prescriptive period	Blackwood argues claims prescribed under Louisiana one-year period	§1983 claims prescribed; dismissed with prejudice
Whether §1 Sherman Act claim shows a plausible conspiracy	Plaintiffs allege a coordinated scheme to restrain trade by improper peer review	Conversations do not show an actual agreement to restrain trade	Rule 12(b)(6) granted for §1 claim; no plausible conspiracy
Whether §2 Sherman Act claim shows monopolization/attempted monopolization	Alleged actions show attempt to monopolize dental market	No evidence of dangerous probability or specific intent to monopolize	Rule 12(b)(6) granted for §2 claim; insufficient facts
Whether the defamation claim states a cognizable cause of action	Defendant’s alleged false testimony and biased predisposition damaged Haygood	Allegations are opinions or conclusory; no definable defamatory statements	Defamation claim dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) and Badeaux standards
Whether the Louisiana UTPA claim is pled with adequate specificity	Conduct was unfair or deceptive in business of dentistry	Allegations fail to meet public policy/offense standards	UTPA claim dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6)

American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1999) (§1983 color-of-state-law requirement; private conduct not actionable)
Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must state plausible claim rather than sheer possibility)
Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1984) (evidence of conspiracy must show conscious commitment to common objective)
Dowdy & Dowdy P’ship v. Arbitron, Inc., 2010 WL 3942755 (S.D. Miss. 2010) (bare conspiracy allegations insufficient to plead illegal antitrust activity)
Brossette v. City of Baton Rouge, 837 F. Supp. 759 (E.D. La. 1993) (single act tolls prescriptive period; law-of-the-case considerations)
Full Draw Prods. v. Easton Sports, Inc., 182 F.3d 745 (10th Cir. 1999) (elements of attempted monopolization under §2)