ORDER
This mаtter comes before the Court on cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (docs. 37, 81). The Motions have been briefed and are ripe for disposition at this time. 1
1. Background.
A. Relevant Facts.
This lawsuit is the latest battleground in a decades-old turf war between two public utilities who provide services in overlapping territory to certain customers outside the city limits of Mobile, Alabama, but within the boundaries of Mobile County, Alabama. The relevant facts are, with few exceptions, not in dispute, so much so that it would have behooved the parties, streamlined the summary judgment process, and obviated the need for plaintiffs sizeable evidentiary submission had they submitted their Rule 56 motions on stipulated facts, given the paucity of material factual disagreements between them. 2
Plaintiff, Mobile County Water, Sewer *1345 and Fire Protection Authority (“MoCo”), 3 is a rural water authority, organized pursuant to Ala.Code §§ 11-88-1 et seq. It is authorized to sell and does sell treated water to customers within MoCo’s service area. (Doc. 85, at 18.) Defendant, Mobile Area Water and Sewer System (“MAWSS”), 4 is formally organized as a Board of Water and Sewer Commissioners pursuant to Ala.Code §§ 11-50-340 et seq. The parties agree that MAWSS sells treated water and centralized sewer service to сustomers both within the city limits of Mobile, Alabama, as well as outside the city limits of Mobile, including areas within MoCo’s service territory. (Doc. 85, at 12-13.) Thus, it is quite clear (and free from debate) that MAWSS and MoCo are presently selling treated water service in an overlapping geographic area, such that at some level they are vying for the same customers with regard to treated water service. The parties are likewise in full agreement that MAWSS is the sole seller of centralized sewer service in MoCo’s service area. (Doc. 85, at 12.)
The genesis of this lawsuit lies in MAWSS’s practice of requiring new customers to accept MAWSS’s treated water, should MAWSS decide to supply it, as a condition of receiving MAWSS sewer service. To be clear, there is no dispute that MAWSS in fact engages in such a practice. MAWSS does not shy away from this fact, by either denying or downplaying it, but instead readily admits it. In particular, MAWSS freely concedes in its briefs that “MAWSS requires new sewer customers to accept water service from MAWSS if such service is available” and that “MAWSS requires new customers to accept MAWSS water service, if it is made available, if said new customer wishes to receive MAWSS sewer service.” (Doc. 37, Exh. 1 at 2; doc. 85, at 11.) 5 This is not a case, then, in which there are factual issues as to whether the challenged practice exists. Everyone agrees that MAWSS has adopted such a practice. 6 The only ques *1346 tion is its legality.
B. Claims Joined in this Proceeding.
In evaluating the lawfulness of MAWSS’s “all-or-nothing” policy of supplying sewer and water services in MoCo’s service area, the Court is of course constrained by the specific theories of liability interposed by plaintiff; therefore, the framing of the issues in the pleadings is of critical importance to the summary judgment analysis. The Amended Complaint unambiguously reflects that MoCo has postured this action exclusively in terms of antitrust violations. Although the Amended Complaint is not organized by specific causes of action, the sum total of the legal grounds on which MoCo seeks relief against MAWSS in this action are set forth in that filing as follows:
“21. MAWSS has accordingly conditioned the purchase of sewer service (the tied product) in the affected area to the purchase of water service (the tying product) also from MAWSS. Since MAWSS has market power in the provision of sewer service in the affected area, and a substantial volume of commerce in the provision of water service has been affected by the policy and practices here alleged, these tying arrangements are per se unlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 1.
“22. MAWSS’ conditioning of the purchase of sewer service (the tied product) in the affected area to the purchase of water service (the tying product) also from MAWSS, where MAWSS has market power in the provision of sewer service in the affected area and a substantial volume of commerce in the provision of water service has been affected by the policy and practices here alleged, also unreasonably restrains trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 1.
“23. Through the policy and practices alleged, MAWSS has abused its market power in supplying sewer services in the affected area to gain a competitive advantage and foreclose competition in the supply of water services in the affected area, thereby monopolizing and attempting to monopolize trade and commerce in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2.
“24. In addition, through the policy and practices alleged, MAWSS has abused its market power in supplying sewer services in the affected area to gain a competitive advantage and foreclose competition in the supply of water services in the affected area, thereby monopolizing and attempting to monopolize trade and commerce in violation of Code of Alabama (1970), § 6-5-60(a).”
(Amended Complaint (doc. 6), ¶¶ 21-24.)
Simply stated, then, MoCo brought this action contending that MAWSS’s “all-or-nothing” bundling of water services with sewer services in MoCo’s service area constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. 7 The gravamen of MoCo’s antitrust *1347 claims is that MAWSS is leveraging its dominance in the centralized sewer services market to coerce its sewer customers to purchase water service from it, rather than from competitors such as MoCo. MoCo seeks a permanent injunction “restraining MAWSS from requiring any consumer of water to purchase water service from MAWSS as a condition of receiving sewer service”; restraining MAWSS from retaliating against any customer for purchasing water elsewhere; and requiring MAWSS to notify potential customers of their right to purchase water elsewhere. (Doc. 6, at 8.) 8 No other claim or cause of action has been joined by MoCo in this action. 9
The parties have now filed cross-motions for summary judgment as to MAWSS’s liability to MoCo under federal and state antitrust provisions. 10
*1348 II. Summary Judgment Standard.
Summary judgment should be granted only if “there is no issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The party seeking summary judgment bears “the initial burden to show the district court, by reference to materials on file, that there are no genuine issues of material fact that should be decided at trial.”
Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc.,
“The applicable Rule 56 standard is not affected by the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment.”
Godard v. Alabama Pilot, Inc.,
III. Analysis.
A. State Action Immunity. 11
In its Answer to the First Amended Complaint (doc. 11), MAWSS stated as its *1349 Eighth Affirmative Defense the following: “This Defendant affirmatively pleads State Action Immunity.” (Doc. 11, at 5.) The applicability of that defense lies at the heart of the parties’ dueling Motions for Summary Judgment. 12
“Under the state action immunity doctrine ..., states are immune from federal antitrust law for their actions as sovereign.”
Crosby v. Hospital Authority of Valdosta and Lowndes County,
*1350
“To show the existence of a state policy displacing competition, the municipality is not required to point to a specific, detailed legislative authorization.”
Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Medical Center,
The Alabama legislature has unambiguously declared that boards of water and sewer commissioners (such as MAWSS) are authorized and empowered to combine water and sewer systems for purposes of operations, financing and billing. For example, the Alabama legislature expressly authorized such boards “[t]o combine the water system and the sewer system as a single system for the purpose of operation and financing.” Ala.Code § ll-50-343(a)(7). Elsewhere, the legislature reiterated that “[t]he board may combine any water system and sewer system owned and operated by it” and provided that a board “may provide a single sched *1351 ule of rates, fees and charges for the services and facilities furnished by such combined system.” Ala.Code § 11 — 50—351(e). The legislature also conferred extremely broad discretion on the board to implement its authority to combine its water and sewer systems. Indeed, the board received an open-ended delegation of authority “[t]o exercise jurisdiction, control and supervision over any water system or sewer system owned, operated or maintained by the board аnd to make and enforce such rules and regulations for the maintenance and operation of any such system as may, in the judgment of the board, be necessary or desirable for the efficient operation of such system and for accomplishing the purposes of this article.” Ala.Code § ll-50-343(a)(9). 15 If that grant of authority were not sufficiently expansive already to encompass MAWSS’s implementation of an all-or-nothing policy, the legislative intent is further amplified by the provision that “[tjhis article, being necessary for the welfare of the state and its inhabitants, shall be liberally construed to effect the purposes thereof.” Ala.Code § 11-50-357.
Reviewing all of these statutory provisions in the aggregate, the Court concludes that MAWSS’s enactment of an all- or-nothing policy was authorized by the Alabama legislature. To be sure, MoCo is correct that the relevant statutes do not expressly indicate that MAWSS may condition the sale of sewer services to a customer on that customer’s purchase of its water services. But that is not the proper test.
See Bolt,
Moreover, the Court finds that the foreseeability element is also satisfied. It is
*1352
clear from the statute that the Alabama “legislature cоntemplated municipalities would engage in anticompetitive conduct in the course of providing their citizens with a water supply.”
Auton v. Dade City, Fla.,
A trio of Eleventh Circuit decisions concerning analogous water statutes in Florida and Georgia bolster this conclusion.
See McCallum v. City of Athens, Ga.,
At the risk of repetition, the Court emphasizes that MAWSS was еxpressly authorized by the Alabama legislature to operate municipal water and sewer systems, to combine those systems for operational purposes, to implement any rules and regulations pertaining to the operations of those systems that MAWSS deemed desirable for their efficient operation, and to do all acts and things necessary or convenient to carry out those powers, with the additional overlay that these provisions must be liberally construed. Viewed collectively, Alabama’s statutory scheme unquestionably authorized MAWSS to require its sewer customers to purchase water from it if they wanted to received MAWSS sewer service, and the anticompetitive effects of MAWSS’s actions were reasonably foreseeable from the authority granted it by the legislature. To find otherwise would be to disregard the teachings of Town of *1354 Hallie, McCollum, Falls Chase and Auton. 18
In short, the Court holds that, as a matter of law, MAWSS’s challenged conduct follows a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy. Defendant’s practice of conditioning sewer service on its customers’ purchase of defendant’s water service was authorized by the Alabama legislature and its anticom-petitive effects are a foreseeable result of this authorization. Therefore, MAWSS is entitled to state action immunity with respect to MoCo’s federal antitrust claims. 19
B. The Non-Impact of Alabama Code § 11-50-1.1.
In arguing that the “clearly articulated state policy” requirement is not satisfied here, MoCo spends little time parsing Chapter 50, Article 10 of Title 11 of the Alabama Code, as the Court has done, but instead devotes the bulk of its argument to discussion of Ala.Code § 11-50-1.1. That statute provides, in relevant part, that “[m]unicipalities are hereby prohibited from acquiring, or duplicating any services of, any waterworks system or any part thereof, operated by a corporation or association which has been organized under ... Sections 11-88-1 through 11-88-21 ... without the consent of a majority of the members of the governing board of said corporation or association.” Ala.Code § 11-50-1.1. MoCo submits evidence and extensive legal argument in support of the proposition that MAWSS’s conduct of laying water pipes in MoCo’s service territory amounts to unlawful duplication of MoCo’s water services, in violation of § 11-50-1.1.
Plaintiffs invocation of Alabama’s anti-duplication statute does not alter (and, paradoxically, actually reinforces in some respects) the state action immunity analysis set forth in Section III.A.,
supra.
As an initial matter, it bears emphasis that MoCo has asserted no causes of action sounding in § 11-50-1.1 against MAWSS in these proceedings. To be sure, MoCo
*1355
has sued MAWSS for alleged violation of § 11-50-1.1 in state court, and this Court’s understanding is that the parties are actively litigating that issue in that forum. To the extent that plaintiff intends to use its summary judgment briefs to inject a duplicative § 11-50-1.1 claim against MAWSS in these proceedings, that effort is improper.
See Hurlbert v. St. Mary’s Health Care System, Inc.,
If the Court understands MoCo’s position correctly, its purpose in fоcusing its summary judgment briefs on the § 11— 50-1.1 issue is to show that the Alabama legislature did not authorize MAWSS’s conduct. As mentioned
supra,
state action immunity from federal antitrust law applies to political subdivisions only when their activities are
“both
authorized by statute
and
[their] anticompetitive effect is an intended (meaning foreseeable) result of this authorization.”
Bankers,
*1356 Fundamentally, MoCo is mixing apples and oranges. The MAWSS transgression on which MoCo’s antitrust claims are based is its alleged “tying arrangement,” whereby MAWSS obliges its sewer customers to purchase MAWSS treated water service as a condition to receiving MAWSS sewer service, thereby restraining trade, inhibiting competition, and leveraging its' market power with respect to centralized sewer service to increases sales of its treated water service. This is the “all-or-nothing” policy referenced in the pleadings. The question, then, for purposes of assessing MAWSS’s entitlement to state action immunity from antitrust liability is whether the Alabamа legislature authorized MAWSS’s all-or-nothing policy and whether the anticompetitive effects of that policy are reasonably foreseeable. In section III.A., supra, the Court has already answered this question affirmatively based on review of MAWSS’s organizing statutes and applicable precedents.
With its § 11-50-1.1 argument, however, MoCo would recast its antitrust claims into something they are not. If MoCo’s § 11-50-1.1 argument is accepted as true, then the Alabama legislature did not authorize MAWSS to extend its water treatment service network into areas already covered by MoCo’s water treatment system. If that were correct, then MAWSS’s act of encroaching on MoCo’s turf would contravene Alabama law, and MoCo would prevail in the pending state-court action. But that encroachment is not the conduct of which MoCo is complaining in this case. Here, MoCo has specifically delineated its antitrust claim to be about MAWSS’s requirement that sewer customers buy its water service, not MAWSS’s presence in MoCo’s service area. Stated differently, the Sherman Act violation claimed by MoCo is a tying arrangement, not a dupliсation of services. 21 As long as a clearly articulated state policy allows MAWSS to condition the sale of sewer service on customers’ agreement to purchase water service from MAWSS, then state action immunity applies and the Sherman Act claims against MAWSS must be dismissed. Section 11-50-1.1 has precisely no bearing on whether an Alabama board of water and sewer commissioners may implement all-or-nothing policies concerning sale of water and sewer services. Therefore, that section is, quite plainly, irrelevant to the state action immunity analysis. MoCo’s argument to the contrary unhelpfully muddies the waters, and serves only to divert attention from the issues that have been properly joined in these proceedings. MoCo must live with the claims that it has actually joined herein, not some hypothetical, unpleaded set of claims that might or might not be able to survive Rule 56 scrutiny. MAWSS having identified a fatal legal deficiency in (or, more accurately, a valid legal defense to) MoCo’s antitrust claims in this action, MoCo will not be permitted to morph those claims at the eleventh hour to remedy thе defects and *1357 dodge the swing of the summary judgment axe. 22
Moreover, plaintiffs reliance on § 11-50-1.1 is misplaced because its result-driven reasoning would lead to absurd results in an array of circumstances. Tying arrangements are generally proscribed by the Sherman Act, unless immunity applies. To accept MoCo’s position, however, would be effectively to declare that MAWSS’s all- or-nothing policy violates the Sherman Act when it occurs in MoCo’s service territory (because of § 11-50-1.1), but not when it occurs outside the territory of MoCo or any other rural water authority (where § 11-50-1.1 would not apply). 23 So MoCo would have this Court hold that MAWSS is not entitled to immunity for anticompeti-tive acts in MoCo’s service territory, even though MoCo’s own argument shows that MAWSS would be entitled to such immunity for precisely the same anticompetitive acts performed anywhere else. 24 The Court perceives nothing in the Sherman Act or Alabama’s legislative scheme that would contemplate immunizing MAWSS from antitrust liability for tying arrangements performed in certain service territories, but not for those in others.
Finally, far from defeating MAWSS’s state action immunity defense, MoCo’s § 11-50-1.1 arguments actually strengthen and reinforce defendant’s entitlement to immunity under that doctrine. As interpreted by MoCo, § 11-50-1.1 is an anticompetitive statute evincing a legislative intent to curtail or, indeed, eradicate all competition between municipal boards of water and sewer commissioners, on the one hand, and rural water authorities, on the other. For example, MoCo insists that “[n]o Alabama Code section more clearly articulates the legislature’s intent to prevent direct competition (and wasteful duplication of services) between Munic
*1358
ipal Water Boards (like MAWSS) and Rural Water Authorities (like MoCo).” (Doc. 82, at 22.)
25
But this argument plays directly into defendant’s hand as to the foreseeability prong of state action immunity. Recall that a touchstone of state action immunity is that the anticompetitive effects of the legislature’s authorization be foreseeable.
See generally Bankers,
Fоr all of the foregoing reasons, it is the determination of this Court that Alabama Code § 11-50-1.1 in no way undermines, alters or defeats defendant’s entitlement to state action immunity from the federal antitrust claims interposed against it in this action.
C. The State-Law Antitrust Claim.
Having found that MAWSS is entitled to immunity with respect to the Sherman Act claims, the only remaining question is the fate of MoCo’s state-law claim under Ala. Code § 6-5-60(a). That section creates a right of action for anyone “injured or damaged by an unlawful trust, combine or monopoly, or its effect, direct or indirect.” Id.
*1359
“The federal law relating to monopolization governs Alabama antitrust actions” brought under § 6-5-60.
McCluney v. Zap Professional Photography, Inc.,
IV. Conclusion.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that principles of state action immunity bar all of plaintiffs claims against defendant herein. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc; 37) is granted, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 81) is denied, and the Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. A separate judgment will enter.
. Plaintiff peppers its briefs with inflammatory allegations that MAWSS’s conduct is "hugely wasteful” and amounts to "great *1349 waste,” that a water pipeline laid by MAWSS constitutes "an act of extraordinary aggression,” that defendant is motivated by "greed or a thirst for power,” that customers are victimized by "the extraordinary greed of MAWSS,” that MAWSS’s conduct is "unnecessarily wasteful and destructive,” and the like. (Doc. 82, at 4, 5, 12; doc. 86, at 6.) Whether defendant’s activities are wasteful, whether a water pipeline laid by defendant amounts to an attack on plaintiff, whether defendant is greedy, and the like do not appear relevant to the immunity analysis. Rather, these statements amount to little more than name-calling designed to bias the Court against defendant. Such vituperative characterizations concerning collateral matters will be disregarded, inasmuch as they do not assist the Court in resolving the cross-motions for summary judgment.
Notes
. Also pending are Motions for Leave to File
Amicus Curiae
Briefs (docs. 45, 46) filed by non-parties, Alabama Rural Water Association and West Morgan — East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority. "District courts have inherent authority to appoint or deny
amici
which is derived from Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.”
Jin v. Ministry of State Security,
. Plaintiff stresses that this is a "bell weather [sic ] case” that "has received national attention” and that "touches all Rural Water Authorities in Alabama.” (Doc. 82, at 1, 5 & n. 6.) Such statements are neither relevant nor helpful. It goes without saying that every case filed in this District Court is important. Moreover, our judicial system's common-law framework implies that while rulings at the district court level are not generally binding on non-parties, they may well constitute persuasive authority in other disputes in other courts. That is no more or less true here than it wоuld be in any other case pending before the undersigned. The Court categorically re *1345 jects any suggestion that special treatment or a different approach to the summary judgment analysis is warranted in this case because of the importance, novelty or general interest of its subject matter. The stakes are high in every lawsuit filed in this District Court, and this case is certainly not unique in that regard.
. In previous rulings in this case, the Court has used the unwieldy acronym MCWSFPA to designate plaintiff. To improve readability at no expense to clarity, plaintiff’s alternate shorthand of "MoCo” will be employed in this Order.
. In its summary judgment briefing, defendant asserts that plaintiff has identified it improperly and that its correct name is "Board of Water and Sewer Commissioners of the City of Mobile, doing business as the Mobile Area Water and Sewer System.” (Doc. 37, Exh. 1 at 1 n. 1; Doc. 85, at 1, n. 1.) Be that as it may, there is no dispute that MAWSS is organized as a Board of Water and Sewer Commissioners under Alabama law; therefore, the summary judgment analysis proceeds in recognition of that designation.
. In that regard, MAWSS’s planning and engineering manager, Dwight McGough, testified that if a new sewer customer "did nоt connect to our water that was available, then we would not accept them as a [sewer] customer.” (McGough Dep., at 78.) Likewise, MAWSS's director, Malcolm Steeves, testified that if MAWSS customers "are using our sewer service, they need to use our water service. ... So if they are and they decide not to for some reason or another, then that would be a problem. They'd need to get sewer service some other way.” (Steeves Dep., at 102.) Thus, if an existing MAWSS sewer customer wanted to disconnect from MAWSS water service, defendant’s policy would be to terminate sewer service to that customer. (Id. at 102-03.)
. In light of the parties’ unanimity on this point, the Court will not belabor it by reciting the considerable record evidence marshaled by MoCo to support the existence of that *1346 practice, either as a general proposition or in specific instances.
. As a general proposition, there is no question that tying arrangements violate the Sherman Act.
See, e.g., Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.,
. MoCo also requested entry of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against MAWSS. Those motions were denied by Order entered on October 29, 2007.
See Mobile County Water, Sewer and Fire Protection Authority, Inc.
v.
Mobile Area Water and Sewer System, Inc.,
. Significantly, this case is not the only pending litigation between MoCo and MAWSS. Indeed, in August 2005 MоCo sued MAWSS in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama on the following bases: (a) that MAWSS's provision of treated water services in MoCo’s service area violates the so-called anti-duplication statute found at Ala.Code § 11-50-1.1; (b) that MAWS S's encroachment in MoCo's service area breaches MAWS S’s obligations under a settlement agreement entered into between the parties in 1987; (c) that MAWSS is trespassing in MoCo’s service area; and (d) claims for declaratory, injunc-tive and monetary relief. The Court understands that this state-court action, including specifically MoCo’s claim against MAWSS under Ala.Code § 11-50-1.1, remains pending at this time. The legally distinct claims joined in the state-court proceedings are not before this Court and will not be decided herein. In August 2007, this Court denied MAWSS’s motion to stay this federal action pursuant to
Colorado River
abstention principles (see doc. 17); therefore, parallel litigation has proceeded between the same parties in federal and state court, albeit alleging different theories and claims for relief, for more than a year. In declining to enter a stay, this Court opined as follows: "[ijrrespective of how the ... § 11-50-1.1 claims are resolved in Mobile County Circuit Court, the antitrust causes of action joined in this action will remain outstanding.”
Mobile County Water, Sewer and Fire Protection Authority, Inc. v. Mobile Area Water and Sewer System, Inc.,
.The sequencing of these motions is unfortunate. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 37) was filed and fully briefed long before Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 81) was submitted. Nonetheless, the parties (and plaintiff, in particular) utilized this second motion to rebrief, reargue and reiterate the same issues that had already been fully presented in connection with De *1348 fendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, as well as to raise previously omitted arguments that could and should have been presented in those earlier rounds of briefing. The net effect is that plaintiff has parlayed its cross-motion for summary judgment into a second bite at the apple concerning legal issues previously briefed in full and taken under submission in the context of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
. Indeed, MoCo recognizes the centrality of this issue by stating ”[t]he overarching premise (albeit false) of MAWSS’s Motion for Summary Judgment is that MAWSS is entitled to 'state action immunity' for its illegal tying.” (Doc. 47, at 1.) That is not to say, however, that state action immunity is the only legal basis touted by defendant for Rule 56 relief. To the contrary, defendant contends that it is also entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff has failed to establish the "economic coercion” element of an antitrust tying claim, and that plaintiff’s summary judgment motion should be denied because it has failed to make a sufficient showing under the "two separate products” element.
See generally Thompson v. Metropolitan Multi-List, Inc.,
. Although the applicable standard for state action immunity differs depending on whether the defendant is a state, a political subdivision, or a private actor, MAWSS plainly fits within the second category. It has been recognized in this Circuit that the "political subdivision” iteration of the state action immunity standard encompasses entities such as hospital and transit authorities, state bar organizations, and rural electric cooperatives,
*1350
based on "the government-like attributes of the defendant entity” and the presence of indicia demonstrating that "the nexus between the State and the entity is sufficiently strong that there is little real danger that the entity is involved in a
private
anticompetitive arrangement.”
Bankers,
. That principle is not without limits, however. In accordance with
Community Communications Co. v. City of Boulder, Colo.,
. The breadth of this grant of authority is reinforced by another subsection of the same statute, which authorizes boards "[t]o do all acts and things necessary or convenient to carry out the powers expressly granted in this article.'' Ala.Code § 11 — 50—343(a)(13).
. Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary are without merit. For example, MoCo asserts that the statutory authorization to combine water and sewer systems is limited to “operation and financing” matters, which excludes combining the systems for purposes of the all- or-nothing policy at issue here. (Doc. 47, at 15.) The Court cannot agree. "Operation” is a broad term. The legislative framework clearly allows MAWSS to combine the operations of its water and sewer systems and to enact any rules and regulations that are necessary or desirable for efficient operations of those systems. The bundled sale of water and sewer services to its customers is a MAWSS policy within the heartland of that broad statutory authorization. Plaintiff also protests that the cited Alabama code sections are silent as to whether MAWSS may enact all-or-nothing arrangements and do not specifically endorse the all-or-nothing policy. Once again, this argument presupposes a much greater degree of legislative precision than the legal standard contemplates.
. In its Reply Brief (doc. 86), the last of several briefs filed by MoCo on the issue of state action immunity, plaintiff argues for the first time that state action immunity is unavailable here because the antitrust claims brought against a political subdivision are being brought by a political subdivision, not a private individual. Plaintiff fails to identify any authority supporting the proposition that the availability of state action immunity depends on the identity of the entity bringing the antitrust claims. Nor is there any basis in logic or common sense why state action immunity should turn on the status of the plaintiff, such that muniсipalities who would enjoy such immunity if private actors sue them in antitrust would be stripped of such immunity if another municipality is the plaintiff. Accordingly, even if this argument were properly raised in MoCo's reply brief at the conclusion of multiple rounds of briefing, the Court declines plaintiff's invitation to devise a novel exception to the well-established state action immunity doctrine. If, as plaintiff suggests, there is a paucity of authority awarding state action immunity when a regulated entity is being sued by another regulated entity under antitrust law, it does not follow that there is an analytical impediment to application of state action immunity in those circumstances. Rather, a far more likely explanation for the dearth of such authority is that municipalities rarely sue each other under the Sherman Act. Government-on-government antitrust lawsuits are aberrational. Besides, plaintiff's contention that all of the relevant caselaw concerning this immunity involves private actors suing regulated actors is simply false.
See, e.g., Town of Hallie,
. Also instructive is
Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield,
. In light of this determination, it is unnecessary to examine defendant’s alternative argument for summary judgment that, even if immunity does not attach, plaintiff's claims should still be dismissed for want of evidence of actual coercion. (See doc. 37, at 7-8.) In any event, plaintiff has come forward with substantial record evidence of coercion, so it appears unlikely that Rule 56 relief would be appropriate for defendant based on this argument, were the Court to reach it.
. Before reaching the merits of MoCo's argument, two other points bear mention, at least in passing. First, MoCo's reliance on § 11-50-1.1 effectively blurs or, more accurately, obliterates the line separating its federаl lawsuit from its state lawsuit. If MoCo intended for its Sherman Act claims in this action to collapse into the § 11-50-1.1 cause of action it began pursuing against MAWSS in state court two years before it filed its Complaint in federal court, then it is difficult to conceive of why MoCo would choose to prosecute a second, redundant lawsuit in this forum. After all, the declaratory and injunc-tive relief sought here would presumably be equally available in the state-court proceedings. (See doc. 82, at 6 (conceding that MoCo seeks nothing other than an injunction in this case).) And if both the federal and the state lawsuits turn on the construction of § 11 — 50— 1.1, then MoCo can achieve nothing in this action other than increased expense and inconvenience for the parties, as well as dupli-cative commitment of judicial resources in two different forums. Second, if as MoCo now contends its Sherman Act claims rest on the § 11-50-1.1 issue, then it is troubling that this factor was not brought to the Court's attention by MoCo during the briefing of MAWSS’s Motion to Stay (doc. 13), which was predicated on the existence of parallel state-court proceedings. Upon applying the Colorado River factоrs, this Court declined to abstain pending the outcome of the state-court action, based in no small part on the Court’s assessment that the legal issues in the two cases were distinct and that the state-court rulings would not affect the antitrust claims in this action. (See doc. 17, at 7-8.) Had the Court been aware at that time that MoCo intended to bootstrap its Sherman Act claims on the proposition that MAWSS was in violation of § 11-50-1.1, when a separate § 11-50-1.1 claim was already pending before the Mobile County Circuit Court, the Colorado River analysis would have proceeded far differently. The net result of MoCo’s omission of its intentions in this regard in briefing the Colorado River analysis was that this Court in ruling on the Motion to Stay was incorrectly led to believe that the issues pending in the two cases were distinct and that this Court was being asked to decide only issues of federal law, not unsettled, thorny questions of Alabama statutory interpretation that were already pending' before a state tribunal. If, in fact, the § 11-50-1.1 issue were relevant to the antitrust claims presented here (the Court finds herein that it is not), then the Court would not embark on a quest to resolve unsettled questions of Alabama statutory in *1356 terpretаtion that are pending in a state-court action involving these very parties without first taking a long look at the propriety of abstention, whether on motion by defendant or sua sponte, given the obvious potential for interference with the state-court proceedings and inconsistent rulings arising from the significant overlap of legal issues involved.
. It is difficult to imagine how the mere duplication of services by competing service providers in the same geographic area— which is the very definition of competition in the marketplace — could possibly amount to a restraint of trade or other anticompetitive conduct that might violate the Sherman Act. Even if it could, the point remains that MoCo has not fashioned its Sherman Act claims on this theory, and cannot rely on sleight of hand in a summary judgment brief to rewrite those claims now.
. To be clear, the Court makes no findings and expresses no opinions as to whether MAWSS's conduct is violative of § 11-50-1.1. That determination hinges on issues of Alabama statutory interpretation as well as construction of the Alabama Supreme Court's limited and potentially ambiguous guidance in
City of Wetumpka
v.
Central Elmore Water Authority,
. Plaintiff admits as much, stating that MoCo “does not dispute any conduct pursuant to [MAWSS’s organizing statutes] within the city limits of Mobile.” (Doc. 47, at 19.)
.To take the reasoning one step further, suppose the shoe were on the other foot and MoCo were attempting to reach into MAWSS's service territory to provide competing water services. Under MoCo's own reasoning, MAWSS would face no Sherman Act liability for its tying arrangements in that event because MoCo would be infringing on MAWSS’s service territory (such that MAWSS would not be violating § 11-50-1.1, even though its anticompetitive behavior would be precisely the same as it is in the facts of this case), rather than the converse. Likewise, under MoCo’s theory, MoCo would apparently be proteсted by immunity from Sherman Act liability for tying arrangements that it performed anywhere because Ala.Code §11-50-1.1 does not apply to it. In short, to adopt MoCo's reasoning would be to draw false, unprincipled distinctions and yield bizarre, incongruent results in which antitrust liability would be predicated on mere happenstance and caprice, rather than being rooted in any systematic, consistent application of federal and state statutory authority. The Court declines to embrace such a blatantly result-driven rationale.
. Similarly, plaintiff argues elsewhere that § 11-50-1.1 "prohibits competition initiated by a municipal Water Board (MAWSS) against a rural Water Authority (Mobile County Water Authority) without the permission of the rural Water Authority.” (Doc. 47, at 6-7.) Plaintiff also states that "the legislative intent is to protect [MoCo] from competition of any sort.” {Id. at 18.)
. Another way to make the point is as follows: MoCo’s antitrust causes of action in this lawsuit are rooted in the premise that MAWSS is competing with it unfairly. Unfair competition is, at some level, the essence of an antitrust violation. Yet, MoCo's own position is that the Alabama legislature intended to forbid competition between MAWSS and MoCo altоgether. If the legislature intended there to be no competition between MAWSS and MoCo, and if an anticompetitive legislative scheme lies at the core of the state action immunity defense, then the legislature's clear anticompetitive framework for municipal water and sewer supplies should immunize MAWSS from liability in antitrust law for anticompetitive acts with respect to MoCo. Once again, it is clear that MoCo is attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole by seeking to hold MAWSS liable in antitrust law for its conduct in this case. The theory simply does not fit the facts. MoCo may or may not have viable claims for relief under § 11— 50 — 1.1, for breach of contract, and the like, but those issues are joined in the parallel state-court proceedings and are not properly before this Court.
. Notably, the parties have not argued otherwise, and plaintiff has never suggested that its § 6-5-60 cause of action can survive summary judgment if its federal antitrust claims do not. To the contrary, plaintiff concedes that "Alabama state antitrust analysis mimics the Federal antitrust analysis.” (Doc. 82, at 2 n. 3.) There being no discernable distinction between the federal and state antitrust claims, and the parties having identified none, the dismissal of the Sherman Act claims will likewise be fatal to plaintiff’s § 6-5-60 cause of action.