Page 38 - CLT010421

38 ¦ JANUARY 4, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

In 2017 defendant Isaiah House was organized as number of well-known streaming defendants and
a business providing sober living arrangements and institutional group defendants. The complaint al-
half-way house services. The decedent, who was a leged that the defendants were operating within
resident of Isaiah House, was found unresponsive consent decrees and rate-setting agreements that
and pronounced dead while on the Isaiah House were highly favorable to the defendants, allowing
property. Plaintiff, administrator of the decedent’s them to secure licenses at lower fees than PRM
estate, brought a claim for wrongful death and was offering. PRM alleged that this contrived and
negligence against Isaiah House, alleging failure constricted licensing scheme produced below-mar-
to supervise and properly search residents upon ket rates and imposed a court-administered rate-
entry and failure to monitor the residents. Defen- setting process that was unresponsive to market
dants moved to dismiss, asserting sovereign im- forces. According to PRM, defendants engaged
munity and arguing Isaiah House was an “arm of in aggressive tactics against PMR to prevent them
the state.” Plaintiff objected, arguing defendant from selling licenses and routinely met together at
was a private corporation that contracted with the trade gatherings where they colluded in establish-
state rather than an agent of the state. The court ing and maintaining their anticompetitive activi-
noted that Isaiah House was not “created by” the ties. This activity, the defendants contended, was
state, but rather formed in conjunction the state’s in violation of the Sherman Act, and Connecti-
community-based service programs. The court also cut’s Antitrust Act and Unfair Trade Practices
noted that Isaiah House was not created for a speci- Act. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to
fied public purpose but to carry out charitable ser- state a claim. The district court granted the mo-
vices. Finally, the court noted that executives and tion. The first 14 counts of PMR’s complaint al-
directors at Isaiah House were not state employees, leged that defendants violated §1 of the Sherman
and Isaiah House was an autonomous entity. As Act by engaging in horizontal price-fixing and a
such, the court found the majority of factors from group boycott of PMR. But PMR did not allege
Gordon weighed against entitlement to sovereign direct evidence of a conspiracy. Instead, PMR
immunity, and denied the motion to dismiss. argued its claims could be supported by circum-
stantial evidence. Without more, parallel conduct
does not suggest conspiracy. Mere conclusory al-
U.S. DISTRICT COURT legations of agreement at some unidentified point
does not supply acts adequate to show illegality.
In this case, the fact that none of the defendants
ANTITRUST chose to do business with PMR did not show that
this refusal to deal was because of any illicit un-
derstanding among defendants and PMR alleged
Performance Rights Organization facts that could suggest innocent reasons for the
Failed to State Antitrust Claim Against defendants to decline to do business with PMR.
Music Industry Defendants Yes The court also rejected PMR’s contention that de-
fendants engaged in abusive buyer-side monopoly
CASE: Pro Music Rights, LLC v. Apple, Inc. activity in violation of §2 of the Sherman Act.
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut For similar reasons, the court also rejected PMR’s
DOC. NO.: 3:20-cv-00309 state-law contentions.
COURT OPINION BY: Meyer
DATE: December 16, 2020 • PAGES: 21
EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
The court granted a motion to dismiss a com-
plaint, after concluding that the complaint did not
contain factual allegations that plausibly stated Wrongful Termination Plaintiff
an antitrust claim. Pro Music Rights was a per-
formance rights organization (PRO) that licensed Adequately Pleaded Elements of
performers’ musical works, charged buyers license Promissory Estoppel
fees for public performance, and passed along
royalties to the copyright owners. PMR had a siz- CASE: Lee v. Grocery Haulers, Inc.
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
able library of works to license. Potential buyers DOC. NO.: 3:20-cv-00523
were not, however, willing to pay PMR’s fees. The COURT OPINION BY: Arterton
buyers chose instead to continue paying licensing DATE: December 18, 2020 • PAGES: 7
fees to two other established PROs --- ASCAP The court granted in part and denied in part defen-
and BMI. PRM filed an antitrust action against a dant’s motion to dismiss. Robert Lee, an African

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune