Green Solutions Recycling, LLC v. Refuse Inc. et al
ORDER - GSR shall respond to this Order to state why this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Sherman Antitrust Act and Commerce Clause claims. GSR must file the response within 10 days of the date of this Order. Defendants will then have seven 7 days from that date to respond. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/16/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
GREEN SOLUTIONS RECYCLING, LLC,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00334-MMD-VPC
REFUSE, INC.; RENO DISPOSAL
COMPANY, INC.; WASTE MANAGEMENT
OF NEVADA, INC.; CITY OF RENO; and
DOES 1-10; et al.
Plaintiff Green Solutions Recycling, LLC (“GSR”), a Nevada limited liability
company, initiates this action against the City of Reno and three Nevada corporations
alleging that Defendants entered into exclusive garbage disposal contracts, thereby
restraining trade in violation of both federal and state law. (ECF No. 1.)
GSR asserts that this Court has federal question jurisdiction under the Sherman
Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and the Commerce Clause, U.S. CONST., art. I, § 8.
After reviewing the complaint, it appears from the factual allegations that this case
concerns a local dispute among the City of Reno and Nevada companies and does not
affect or implicate interstate commerce. This Court therefore questions whether it has
subject matter jurisdiction over this case. See McLain v. Real Estate Bd. of New Orleans,
Inc., 444 U.S. 232, 232-33 (1980) ("To establish jurisdiction under the Sherman Act, a
plaintiff must allege the relationship between the activity involved and some aspect of
interstate commerce and . . . if [the activity] is local in nature, that it has [a substantial]
effect on some other appreciable activity demonstrably in interstate commerce."); see also
City of Los Angeles v. County of Kern, 581 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that recyclers
lacked prudential standing to bring claim asserting that county ordinance violated the
dormant Commerce Clause because the purpose of the dormant Commerce Clause was
to limit power to states to erect barriers against interstate trade, recyclers' alleged injury
was not even marginally related to interests Clause sought to safeguard, and ordinance
did not burden recyclers' protected interest in the interstate waste market).
It is the plaintiff’s burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction. See Kanter v.
Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001). However, it does not appear
that GSR has met its burden based on the bare allegation that Defendants’ conduct has
had an impact on interstate trade.
It is therefore ordered that GSR respond to this Order to state why this Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over the Sherman Antitrust Act and Commerce Clause claims.
GSR must file the response within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. Defendants will
then have seven (7) days from that date to respond.
DATED THIS 16th day of February 2017
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?