Nexstar Broad., Inc. v. Granite Broad. Corp.
| Decision Date | 09 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | CAUSE NO. 1:11-CV-249 RM |
| Parties | NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC., Plaintiff v. GRANITE BROADCASTING CORPORATION, WISE-TV LICENSE, LLC, AND WISE-TV, INC., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
This antitrust suit focuses on the market in the Fort Wayne, Indiana, area for television local spot advertising supported by network programming. Until its affiliation expired at the end of last July, Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. operated the FOX affiliate in Fort Wayne. Granite Broadcasting Corporation became the FOX affiliate, giving Granite and Malara Broadcasting (with which Granite is allegedly associated) five of the six network affiliations in the Fort Wayne area. Nexstar contends that by its anticompetitive conduct, Granite has foreclosed it from the market. Granite has moved to dismiss Nexstar's complaint for failure to state a claim. The court heard argument on June 14, and now denies Granite's motion.
The issue on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6) isn't "whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Caremark, Inc. v. Coram Healthcare Corp., 113 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 1997). The complaint must containa "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations aren't required, but the complaint must contain enough factual matter "to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Morrison v. YTB Int'l, Inc., 649 F.3d 533, 538 (7th Cir. 2011); Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). To plead a plausible claim, a complaint must contain "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; see also Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 2010) (). "Threadbare recital of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
The complaint needn't specifically plead each element the pleader must prove at trial, see Reynolds v. CB Sports Bar, Inc., 623 F.3d 1143, 1147 (7th Cir. 2010); Bausch v. Stryker Corp., 630 F.3d 546, 560 (7th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 498 (Oct. 31, 2011), but it must contain enough factual allegations to make it more than a "sheer possibility" that the defendant has acted unlawfully. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at. 678; accord, In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litigation, 630 F.3d 622, 629 (7th Cir. 2010), cert denied, 131 S. Ct. 2165 (Apr. 25, 2011) (). "The required level of factual specificity rises with the complexity of the case." McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 616 (7th Cir. 2011); Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 2010) (); Limestone Development Corp., 520 F.3d at 803 ().
Nexstar brings this suit against Granite and its subsidiaries, WISE-TV License, LLC and WISE-TV, Inc. (to whom the court collectively refers as "Granite"), alleging that Granite engaged in anti-competitive conduct with Malara Broadcasting and other unnamed co-conspirators that significantly limited or foreclosed competition in the television local spot advertising market in the Fort Wayne designated market area by restricting access to an essential element of competition-network programming, to the detriment of competitors (like Nexstar), local advertisers, and consumers, and that its actions constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade, an attempt to monopolize, and a conspiracy to monopolize in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2 (Counts 1-3), §7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18 (Count 4), and Indiana's Antitrust Act, IND. CODE §§ 24-1-2-1 and 24-1-2-2 (Count 5).
The court accepts (without vouching for their truth) the following factual allegations in the complaint as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss:
Nexstar owns and operates WFFT-TV, one of five commercial full-power television stations in Fort Wayne and the exclusive FOX network affiliate from October 1986 until Nexstar's agreement with FOX Broadcasting terminated on July 31, 2011.
Granite owns and controls WISE-TV, the exclusive NBC affiliate and MyNetworkTV affiliate in the Fort Wayne DMA, and controls the advertising sales and revenues of WPTA-TV, the exclusive ABC affiliate and the CW affiliate in the Fort Wayne designated market area, under an advertising representation agreement with Malara Broadcasting, which owns WPTA-TV.
Access to network programming is an essential element, or "key input," for competition in the television local spot advertising market in the Fort Wayne designated market area. As a result of its relationship with Malara, Granite controls access to network programming for ABC, NBC, CW and MyNetworkTV and about 45 percent of the broadcast television local spot advertising revenues in the Fort Wayne designated market area.
When Nexstar's agreement with FOX Broadcasting ended in 2011, Granite paid a supra-competitive price to become the new exclusive FOX affiliate in Fort Wayne (effective August 1, 2011), providing Granite with control overprogramming and local advertising for five of the six major national network affiliations and three of the "Big Four" networks in the Fort Wayne DMA (ABC, NBC, FOX, CW, and MyNetwork TV), substantially increasing Granite's share of the television local spot advertising market, and significantly limiting or foreclosing competitors' access to network programming and their ability to compete for advertising revenues.
Since announcing its agreement with FOX in July 2011, Granite, Malara, and/or Indiana's NewsCenter (the brand name for Granite's consolidated operations in Fort Wayne) have used offers lucrative compensation packages to entice several key Nexstar sales employees who have confidential and proprietary information pertaining to Nexstar's advertising prices. Granite also has tried to speed the movement of advertisers from Nexstar's WFFT-TV to the stations Granite and Malara owns by telling advertisers that WFFT-TV won't have "must have" network programming. or will be going off the air, or is about to be sold, or will discontinue local news.
Granite's collusive aggregation of exclusive network affiliations, denigrating commercial speech, and predatory hiring is harming competition generally, and Nexstar specifically. The injuries include lost advertising revenues, higher operating costs (such as the cost of new equipment and licenses to broadcast new programs to replace the network programming from which Nexstar is foreclosed, and the cost of producing competitive news broadcasts), loss of experienced sales staff and their confidential and proprietary information. Local advertisers will haveto pay higher prices for advertising, so consumers will have to pay higher prices for what local advertisers sell.
Nexstar asks the court to: (1) enjoin Granite and Malara, their directors, officers, employees, agents, successors, and assigns from directly or indirectly controlling television stations affiliated with ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC; (2) order Granite to cease efforts to employee individuals currently employed by Nexstar's WFFT-TV, to delete or expunge any WFFT-TV proprietary and confidential information provided, and to enjoin and restrain Granite from all attempts to discover such information in the future; and (3) award Nexstar actual and treble damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.
In support of its dismissal motion, Granite contends that: (1) the complaint doesn't sufficiently allege antitrust injury; (2) Nexstar lacks standing to maintain a private antitrust action; (3) the allegations of denigrating commercial speech and predatory hiring don't state an actionable antitrust claim; and (4) Nexstar hasn't sufficiently alleged a conspiracy in Counts 1 and 3.
An antitrust claim has three elements: (1) conduct that violates the antitrust laws; (2) antitrust injury, and (3) measurable damages. In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., 527 F.3d 517, 532 (6th Cir. 2008); Deich-Keibler v. Bank One, 243 Fed. Appx. 164, 168 (7th Cir. 2007); Deiter v. Microsoft Corp., 436 F.3d 461, 467 (4thCir. 2006); Blades v. Monsanto Co., 400 F.3d 562, 566 (8th Cir. 2005); In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, 251 F.R.D. 629, 634 (D. Kan. 2008); City of Auburn v. Mavis, 468 N.E.2d 584, 585 (Ind. App. 1984). To satisfy the requirement of antitrust injury, Nexstar must show that it suffered an "injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful," Brunswick Corp. V. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 489 (1977), meaning that it "suffered a loss that stems from a competition-reducing aspect of the defendant's behavior." In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, 251 F.R.D. at 634.
Granite contends that Nexstar hasn't alleged antitrust injury because the only injuries alleged are higher consumer...
To continue reading
Request your trial