Robertson v. SEA PINES REAL ESTATE COMPANIES, INC.
679 F.3d 278
4th Cir.2012Background
- Two putative class actions by real estate buyers alleging §1 antitrust conspiracy by MLS board members in SC (HHMLS and CMLS).
- Plaintiffs claim the MLS rules were designed to exclude lower-cost/online competitors and stabilize prices.
- Defendants are licensed brokerages serving on MLS boards; United States Amicus supported plaintiffs.
- District court denied 12(b)(6); relied on American Needle to find multiple decisionmakers.
- Fourth Circuit affirmed and remanded for further proceedings; court addressed whether plaintiffs plausibly pled a §1 claim.
- The opinion analyzes whether the MLS arrangement constitutes concerted action by separate economic actors and applies a rule-of-reason framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MLS board members are separate economic actors capable of conspiring under §1 | Robertson/Boland contend separate actors exist | Defendants argue intracorporate, single-entity action | Yes, §1 applies; separate economic actors pled |
| Whether the complaints plausibly plead a §1 conspiracy under Twombly/Iqbal | Pleadings show by-laws amount to an agreement | Allegations rely on intra-entity deliberations | Yes, pled plausibly survive dismissal |
| Whether the alleged conspiracy imposes an unreasonable restraint under the rule of reason | Rules harmed competition and lacked procompetitive justifications | Rules may have legitimate procompetitive purposes | Yes, claims survive under rule of reason and require discovery on remand |
| Whether anticompetitive effects are plausibly alleged and tied to MLS rules | Rules caused entry barriers, price stabilization, reduced options | Effects require detailed pricing history | Yes, economically plausible anticompetitive effects pled under Twombly/Iqbal |
Key Cases Cited
- Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984) (unified firm action not §1 conspiracy; separate actors required)
- American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, 130 S. Ct. 2210 (2010) (concerted action can arise from separate economic interests; not per se single entity)
- Twombly, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (two-pronged test; plausibility standard; context matters)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must plead plausible claims with factual content)
- Oksanen v. Page Mem'l Hosp., 945 F.2d 696 (4th Cir. 1991) (requires at least two distinct actors for §1 conspiracy; context matters)
- Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (1984) (need direct or circumstantial evidence of agreement to prove conspiracy)