Marucci Sports, LLC v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8494

Marucci Sports, a new non-wood baseball-bat manufacturer, sued the NCAA and NFHS after several of its aluminum bat models were decertified under the BBCOR (Bat-Ball Coefficient of Restitution) Standard, which limits how “hot” non-wood bats may be for college and high‑school play.
BBCOR testing and certification (including audits and decertification after multiple failures) is performed by Washington State University (WSU); Marucci’s appeals of decertification to the NCAA were unsuccessful.
Marucci alleged the BBCOR Standard was adopted and enforced to protect incumbent large bat manufacturers (Rawlings, Easton, DeMarini, Louisville Slugger) and to exclude new entrants like Marucci, bringing claims under § 1 of the Sherman Act (and state law claims the appeal does not contest).
The district court dismissed Marucci’s Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a § 1 claim and denied leave to file a further amended complaint; Marucci appealed the Sherman Act dismissal and the denial of leave to amend.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed: it held Marucci failed to plead a plausible conspiracy (no facts showing a “meeting of the minds”) and failed to allege injury to competition (only alleged competitor-specific harm), and it found denial of further amendment was not an abuse of discretion because another amendment would have been futile.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants engaged in a § 1 conspiracy to restrain trade	Marucci: NCAA/NFHS, WSU, and incumbents agreed to adopt/enforce BBCOR to exclude new entrants and protect incumbents	NCAA/NFHS: BBCOR is a safety/competition‑balancing rule; no factual allegation of an agreement to restrain trade	Held: Dismissed — complaint pleads only conclusory allegations; no factual “meeting of the minds” to plausibly allege a conspiracy (Twombly/Monsanto standard)
Whether BBCOR unreasonably restrained trade / injured competition in the non‑wood bat market (rule of reason)	Marucci: BBCOR’s enforcement discriminates against new entrants and favors incumbents, harming competition	NCAA/NFHS: BBCOR regulates conditions of the contest to enhance safety/competitive balance and is presumptively procompetitive; Marucci alleges only competitor‑specific injury	Held: Dismissed — BBCOR is a rules‑of‑the‑contest regulation entitled to a procompetitive presumption; Marucci’s allegations are speculative and show only plaintiff‑specific harm, not market injury
Whether denial of leave to amend the complaint was an abuse of discretion	Marucci: Should be allowed a third amendment to cure pleading defects	NCAA/NFHS: Two prior amendments were allowed; further amendment would be futile	Held: Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; further amendment would have been futile after repeated failed attempts

Wampler v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 597 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading required; need factual allegation of agreement in conspiracy cases)
Monsanto Co. v. Spray‑Rite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (1984) (definition of concerted action and requirement of conscious commitment to a common scheme)
Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007) (distinction between per se rule and rule of reason; factors for analysis)
Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okla. v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 468 U.S. 85 (1984) (rules defining conditions of the contest are presumptively procompetitive)
Am. Needle, Inc. v. Nat’l Football League, 560 U.S. 183 (2010) (§1 applies only to concerted action that restrains trade)
Apani Sw., Inc. v. Coca‑Cola Enters., Inc., 300 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2002) (elements of a §1 Sherman Act claim)
Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., LLC, 234 F.3d 863 (5th Cir. 2000) (futility of amendment reviewed under Rule 12(b)(6) standard)