Miscellaneous

6th Cir. Cites Twombly as Requiring "Facts Sufficient to Support More than a Speculative Injury to Competition" in Antitrust Case

CBC's complaint contains only conclusory allegations, and not facts sufficient to support more than a speculative injury to competition. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. CBC suggests that Equifax is: (1) diminishing the competitive advantage of reissues over tri-merged reports; (2) restricting competition between its own reseller subsidiary, Equifax Mortgage, and other resellers; and (3) increasing reissue costs and decreasing options for mortgage lenders. In effect, CBC argues injury in the form of ?higher costs [for reissues] and loss of market share in the Mortgage Lender Market.?

But CBC's complaint fails to allege key facts to substantiate an antitrust injury-that is, that competition in the Mortgage Lender Market decreased due to Equifax's Reseller Agreement. Although the complaint contends that ?CBC Innovis and other Resellers are the principal victims of Equifax's unlawful actions,? CBC never identifies any of these other resellers, and never establishes whether any of these resellers signed a contract similar to the Reseller Agreement. See Total Benefits Planning Agency, Inc. v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 552 F.3d 430, 437 (6th Cir.2008) (?Without an explanation of the other insurance companies involved, and their products and services, the court cannot determine the boundaries of the relevant product market and must dismiss the case for failure to state a claim.?). Moreover, although CBC filed its amended complaint in August 2007, several months after signing the Reseller Agreement, the complaint fails to allege any specific increases in costs for its reissues or lost market sales in the Mortgage Lender Market. CBC's complaint offers generalized allegations of antitrust injury, but the Supreme Court requires more than ?naked assertion[s]? to establish antitrust standing. See NicSand, 507 F.3d at 451 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). As the Twombly Court pronounced, ?a naked assertion ... gets the complaint close to stating a claim, but without some further factual enhancement it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility.? 550 U.S. at 557.

Full post as published by Federal Civil Practice Bulletin on April 07, 2009 (boomark / email).