Examination of Donald Sterling’s Antitrust Claims in His Complaint against the National Basketball Association I. Introduction On May 30, 2014, Donald Sterling, then owner of Los Angeles Clippers (“Clippers”), filed a complaint (“Complaint) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the National Basketball Association (“NBA”) claiming, among others, damages for antitrust violations under Sherman Act §1. This legal action was in response to the NBA’s sanctions issued on April 29, 2014 imposing a lifetime ban on Sterling’s involvement with the operations or management of the Clippers. The sanctions and subsequent termination procedures for Sterling’s ownership interests in the Clippers were the …show more content…
I will first evaluate the strengths of the factual content in the Complaint pleaded by Sterling in surviving a motion to dismiss. I will argue that even though the facts pleaded plausibly suggest an agreement among the members of the NBA, the allegations fail to give rise to an entitlement of relief. I will proceed then to evaluate the merits of Sterling’s claims by analyzing precedents and, when necessary, distinguishing Sterling’s case. I will conclude that, even though the court is likely to find the existence of an agreement, the procompetitive benefits outweigh what little anticompetitive effects there might have been. The factual allegations in the Complaint do not support the finding of antitrust …show more content…
The Supreme Court in Monsanto alludes to a basic distinction between concerted and independent action. The Court makes it clear that independent action is not proscribed. For example, a Manufacturer A may set its prices higher and refuse to deal with those who do not comply with its demands, and Distributor B may, on its own volition, change its prices to continue its relations with the manufacturer. Even if Distributors C, E and D decided to do the same to compete with Distributor B, there would be no antitrust violation if each decided on its own. Showing of such parallel business behavior may be circumstantial evidence from which the fact finder may infer agreement, but it is insufficient on its own to establish