Amory Investments, LLC v. Utrecht-America Holdings, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for failure to state cause of action, plaintiff’s action, alleging that act of defendant-lender of money to other defendants (producers of broiler chickens), in urging said defendants to cut production of broiler chickens, constituted violation of section 1 of Sherman Act. Section 1 of Sherman Act requires allegation that defendants had agreed with each other to perform anti-trust act, and instant allegations fell short of alleging existence of actual agreement between defendant and other defendants to do anything, where plaintiffs only alleged that defendant set out to protect its own interests through unilateral action. Moreover, instant amended complaint, which added defendant to plaintiffs’ existing anti-trust action against other defendants, did not allege that defendant facilitated any agreement with other defendants or helped with enforcement of any such agreement; and (2) various communications between defendant and other defendants did nothing more than remind other defendants of basic rule of economics.