Veritext Corp. v. Bonin et al

Filing 73

ORDER AND REASONS GRANTING 48 Motion for Partial Reconsideration re 44 Order. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 7/28/2017. (jls)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
VERITEXT CORP.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-13903

PAUL A. BONIN, ET AL.

SECTION "B"(2)
ORDER AND REASONS

Before

the

Reconsideration

court
of

are

Judgment

Defendants’
on

Motion

“Motion
to

Dismiss

for

Partial

Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Injunctive Relief, and
Damages Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6)” (Rec. Doc.
48),

“Veritext’s

Memorandum

in

Opposition

to

Motion

for

Reconsideration Filed by Defendants” (Rec. Doc. 54), “Reply Brief
in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration of
Judgment on Motion to Dismiss” (Rec. Doc. 69), “Veritext’s SurReply

Memorandum

Reconsideration”
Memorandum

in

in
(Rec.

Opposition
Doc.

Opposition

70)
to

to

Defendants’

and

“Veritext’s

Defendants’

Motion

for

Supplemental
Motion

for

Reconsideration” (Rec. Doc. 72). For the reasons set forth below,
IT

IS

ORDERED

that

the

Defendants’

Motion

for

Partial

Reconsideration is GRANTED.
Upon further clarification of their argument, this Court
agrees with the Defendants that the Motion for Reconsideration
should be granted regarding Sherman Act claims. Those claims are no
longer legally viable. Review here still shows that Plaintiff’s

1

complaint alleges facts that could meet the prima facie case for
a Sherman Act claim if the alleged actors were different. However,
because the complaint alleges state actors who are directed by a
state legislature, the claim fails as a matter of law. Notably, the
previous Order and Reasons focused on the ability of the Plaintiff
to state a prima facie case based on the facts alleged in the
complaint. However, despite the Plaintiff’s adequately alleged
facts, the actors in the complaint do not fall under the purview
of the Sherman Act. The Supreme Court has held that the Sherman
Act was not designed to “restrain a state or its officers or agents
from activities directed by its legislature.” Parker v. Brown, 317
U.S. 341, 350-51 (1943); See also, Xcaliber Int'l v. AG La., 612
F.3d 368, 378, (5th Cir. 2010). The Sherman act does not apply to
the facts of this case as alleged. Moreover, the Plaintiff concedes
this point and does not cite any authority that allows their claim
to survive a motion to dismiss in any of their oppositions (Rec.
Docs. 54, 70, 72).

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of July, 2017.

___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2