United States Sixth Circuit

In an action brought by plaintiff company and four of its insurance agents against defendants-insurers alleging they conspired to boycott and blacklist plaintiff in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, dismissal of plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly found the complaint failed to adequately plead a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act based on a per se violation or the rule-of-reason test; and 2) there was no abuse of discretion in failing to invite another amended complaint.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/22/2008
• Published 12/22/2008

Judges

• Before:  GILMAN and ROGERS, Circuit Judges;  ZOUHARY, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Richard B. Reiling, Law Office, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellants.  James M. Burns, Williams Mullen, Washington, D.C., Mark Edward Elsener, Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees.   ON BRIEF:  Richard B. Reiling, Law Office, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellants.  James M. Burns, Williams Mullen, Washington, D.C., Mark Edward Elsener, Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, Cincinnati, Ohio, Kent A. Britt, Glenn V. Whitaker, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Cincinnati, Ohio, B. Scott Jones, Reminger Co. LPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, Thomas J. Gruber, McCaslin, Imbus & McCaslin, Cincinnati, Ohio, Peter L. Cassady, Sarah Clay Leyshock, Brian R. Redden, Beckman Weil Shepardson, Cincinnati, Ohio, John R. Folkerth, Jr., Weprin, Folkerth & Routh, Dayton, Ohio, Christopher Freeman Johnson, Freund, Freeze & Arnold, Dayton, Ohio, Maria Del Monaco, Ulmer & Berne, Cleveland, Ohio, John M. Hands, Ulmer & Berne, Cincinnati, Ohio, Edward R. Goldman, Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees.