Merced Irrigation District v. Barclays Bank PLC
178 F. Supp. 3d 181
S.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Merced Irrigation District sued Barclays alleging monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act and unfair competition under California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; Barclays moved to dismiss.
- In a February 29, 2016 Decision and Order the Court dismissed Merced’s Section 1 and unjust enrichment claims but denied dismissal of the Section 2 and related § 17200 claims.
- Barclays filed a Rule 6.3 motion for reconsideration (March 11 Letter), arguing the Court overlooked controlling law and facts showing Merced failed to plead monopoly power because Barclays both raised and lowered prices on the ICE Daily Index.
- Barclays relied on prior Second Circuit authority it says requires proof of charging supracompetitive prices to infer market power.
- Merced opposed reconsideration; the Court treated the letter as a motion and evaluated the narrow grounds for reconsideration (intervening law, new evidence, or clear error/manifest injustice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should reconsider denial of Barclays’ motion to dismiss Merced’s Section 2 claim | Merced argued its complaint sufficiently alleges Barclays engaged in conduct likely to control prices, satisfying Section 2 pleading standards | Barclays argued the Court overlooked controlling law requiring proof of charging prices above competitive level (monopoly pricing) and that allegations of both raising and lowering prices defeat a Section 2 claim | Denied. The Court found no intervening law, new evidence, or clear error; Merced adequately alleged conduct showing ability to control prices under PepsiCo standard |
| Whether reconsideration is warranted under Local Rule 6.3 standards | Merced urged denial because Barclays merely re-argued issues already decided | Barclays contended the Court overlooked controlling precedent and facts that would change the outcome | Denied. The Court applied narrow Rule 6.3 standards and concluded Barclays merely rehashed prior arguments without meeting the strict grounds for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- PepsiCo, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 315 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2002) (test for monopolization focuses on conduct that has or is likely to have the effect of controlling prices)
- Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir. 1992) (reconsideration warranted only for intervening change in law, new evidence, or clear error/manifest injustice)
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (Rule 6.3 requires pointing to controlling law or facts overlooked that would alter the court’s conclusion)
- In re Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (reargument is an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly)
- Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2012) (reargument is not a vehicle to relitigate old issues or get a second bite at the apple)
- Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263 (2d Cir. 1979) (authority cited by defendant concerning inference of market power from pricing behavior)
- Geneva Pharms. Tech. Corp. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 386 F.3d 485 (2d Cir. 2004) (pricing-based market-power discussion relied on by defendant)
Order: Barclays’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.