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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?