Hall v. American Airlines, Inc. , 118 F. App'x 680 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2388
SARAH FUTCH HALL, d/b/a Travel Specialist, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; JEANINE FLAUGHER, d/b/a Flowers
Travel; ASSOCIATION OF RETAIL TRAVEL AGENTS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
PEOPLES TRAVEL LIMITED; JOHN FLAUGHER, d/b/a
Flowers Travel; LANEY INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL;
TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONALS, INCORPORATED,
d/b/a Travel Is Fun,
Plaintiffs,
versus
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INCORPORATED; DELTA
AIRLINES, INCORPORATED; NORTHWEST AIRLINES,
INCORPORATED; CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.;
MIDWEST EXPRESS AIRLINES, INCORPORATED;
AIRTRAN HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED; AMERICAN WEST
AIRLINES, INCORPORATED; FRONTIER AIRLINES,
INCORPORATED; ALASKA AIR GROUP, INCORPORATED;
ALASKA AIRLINES, INCORPORATED; HORIZON AIR
INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; SOCIETE AIR FRANCE;
KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
UNITED AIRLINES, INCORPORATED; DELTA AIRLINES
GLOBAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED; U.S. AIRWAYS,
INCORPORATED; TRANS WORLD AIRLINES; MIDWAY
AIRLINES CORPORATION; AIRTRAN AIRLINES,
INCORPORATED; DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA AG; ALITALIA,
SPA; AIR CANADA,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (CA-00-123-BR)
Argued: October 27, 2004 Decided: December 9, 2004
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Daniel Rees Shulman, GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, MOOTY & BENNETT,
P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Appellants. Lee H. Simowitz,
BAKER & HOSTETLER, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON
BRIEF: Dean C. Eyler, GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, MOOTY & BENNETT, P.A.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota; Henry L. Anderson, Jr., A. L. Butler
Daniel, Bradley A. Coxe, ANDERSON, DANIEL & COXE, Wrightsville
Beach, North Carolina, for Appellants. Gary J. Rickner, WARD AND
SMITH, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina; Ronald F. Wick, Eric Berman,
BAKER & HOSTETLER, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Northwest
Airlines, Inc., KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Continental Airlines,
Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., and Societe
Air France. James V. Dick, Marshall S. Sinick, SQUIRE, SANDERS &
DEMPSEY, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Alaska Air Group, Inc.,
Alaska Airlines, Inc., and Horizon Air Industries, Inc. Thomas W.
Rhodes, Edward H. Wasmuth, Jr., SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, L.L.P.,
Atlanta, Georgia, for AirTran Holdings, Inc. Peter Huston, J.
Thomas Rosch, LATHAM & WATKINS, L.L.P., San Francisco, California,
for America West Airlines, Inc. John D. Shively, Heather T.
Perkins, FAEGRE & BENSON, L.L.P., Denver, Colorado, for Frontier
Airlines, Inc. Robert P. Silverberg, SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF,
L.L.P., Washington, D.C.; Pressly M. Millen, WOMBLE, CARLYLE,
SANDRIDGE & RICE, P.L.L.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Midwest
Express Airlines, Inc.
- 2 -
- 3 -
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 4 -
PER CURIAM:
This is a nationwide class action lawsuit by travel agents
(the Travel Agents) against numerous foreign and domestic
airlines.1 The Travel Agents claim the defendant-airlines
illegally conspired and executed a scheme to reduce and ultimately
eliminate travel-agent-base-commissions on the sale of domestic and
international airline tickets in a concerted effort to boost
profits of the defendant-airlines and to force them (the Travel
Agents) out of business, all in violation of § 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act (the Sherman Act), 15 U.S.C. § 1. The Travel Agents
allege the conspiracy began in 1995 and ended by late summer 2002.
Since the initial filing of this action on June 21, 2000, it
has been dismissed, on varying grounds, against Alitalia, Delta Air
Lines Global Services, Inc., Midway, and Lufthansa. The action has
also been stayed against Air Canada, TWA, United, and US Airways,
based upon notices of bankruptcy filed by those airlines.
1
The defendant-airlines in this action are: Air Canada;
Airtran Holdings, Inc. (Airtran); Alaska Air Group, Inc., Alaska
Airlines, Inc., and Horizon Air Industries, Inc. (collectively
Alaska); Alitalia, SPA (Alitalia); America West Airlines, Inc.
(America West); American Airlines (American); Continental Airlines,
Inc. (Continental); Delta Air Lines (Delta); Delta Air Lines Global
Services, Inc.; Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Lufthansa); Frontier
Airlines, Inc. (Frontier); KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM); Midway
Airlines, Corp. (Midway); Midwest Express Airlines, Inc. (Midwest
Express); Northwest Airlines, Inc. (Northwest); Societe Air France
(Air France); Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA); United Airlines,
Inc. (United); and US Airways, Inc. (US Airways).
- 5 -
The case proceeded against the remaining defendant-airlines
(hereinafter collectively the Airlines): Airtran, Air France,
Alaska, America West, American, Continental, Delta, Frontier, KLM,
Midwest Express, and Northwest. After full discovery, the Airlines
moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
On October 30, 2003, in a lengthy published opinion, the
district court examined the Travel Agents’ proffered evidence
against the Airlines and found no triable issue of fact. Hall v.
United Airlines, Inc., 296 F. Supp. 2d 652 (E.D.N.C. 2003).
Accordingly, the district court granted summary judgment in favor
of the Airlines. Notably, the district court directed the clerk of
court to enter final judgment in favor of the Airlines pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which allows a district
court to order the entry of final judgment as to less than all
parties and all claims in an action when there is no just reason
for delay.2 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The Travel Agents noted a
timely appeal of this final judgment.
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v.
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988).
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions,
2
Here, the district court specifically found there was no just
reason to delay the entry of final judgment with respect to the
Airlines to await the conclusion of bankruptcy proceedings against
Air Canada, TWA, United, and US Airways.
- 6 -
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Moreover, in
assessing the merits of a motion for summary judgment, we view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, here
the Travel Agents, and draw all reasonable inferences in the
non-moving party’s favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
Section 1 of the Sherman Act provides, in pertinent part, that
“[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise,
or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several
States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.” 15
U.S.C. § 1. Therefore, to establish a conspiracy in restraint of
trade in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, as the Travel Agents
have alleged, “a plaintiff must show: (1) a contract, combination
or conspiracy; (2) that imposed an unreasonable restraint of
trade.” American Chiropractic Assn., Inc. v. Trigon Healthcare,
Inc., 367 F.3d 212, 223 (4th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Significantly, purely unilateral action does not violate
§ 1 of the Sherman Act. Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube
Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 767-68 (1984). Rather, concerted activity
between at least two legally distinct persons or entities is at the
heart of a § 1 Sherman Act violation. American Chiropractic Assn.,
- 7 -
Inc., 367 F.3d at 223. To elaborate, “concerted activity
susceptible to sanction by section 1 is activity in which multiple
parties join their resources, rights, or economic power together in
order to achieve an outcome that, but for the concert, would
naturally be frustrated by their competing interests (by way of
profit-maximizing choices).” Virginia Vermiculite, Ltd. v.
Historic Green Springs, Inc., 307 F.3d 277, 282 (4th Cir. 2002).
We have carefully reviewed and considered the district court’s
opinion, the voluminous appellate record, and the parties’ oral and
written appellate arguments. We agree with the district court that
the Travel Agents have not proffered sufficient evidence, when
viewed in the light most favorable to them and when drawing all
reasonable inferences in their favor, to support a finding of
concerted activity by the Airlines, which finding is necessary to
establish a § 1 Sherman Act violation. Accordingly, we find no
error in the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in
favor of the Airlines, and we affirm entry of final judgment in
favor of the Airlines on the reasoning of the district court. See
Hall, 296 F. Supp. 2d at 661-78, 680-81.
AFFIRMED
- 8 -