The court granted defendant City of Seattle's motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' Sherman § 1 claims because Seattle was protected by state
action immunity. The court first found that Seattle's ordinance was clearly
articulated as a state policy. "The statute [from which the ordinance
derives its authority] specifically states that 'it is the intent of the
legislature to permit political subdivisions of the state to regulate for
hire transportation services without liability under federal antitrust laws.'
. . . The Ordinance, by its terms, is an attempt to exercise the authority
granted by [this and similar] state statutes to ensure safe and reliable
for-hire and taxicab transportation services within the City of Seattle. . .
. The statutes on which the City relies clearly delegate authority for
regulating the for-hire transportation industry to local government units and
authorize them to use anticompetitive means in furtherance of the goals of
safety, reliability, and stability. The state 'affirmatively contemplated'
that municipalities would displace competition in the for-hire transportation
market, a situation which satisfies the 'clearly articulated and
affirmatively expressed' requirement for state immunity."
Chamber of Commerce
of the United States of America v. City of Seattle et al, 2-17-cv-00370 (WAWD 2017-08-01, Order)
(Robert S. Lasnik)
The above decision was reported in Docket Navigator's new Antitrust Docket Report. Get yours free today at https://compass.docketnavigator.com/request-access.
No comments:
Post a Comment