IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.Plaintiff,v.SOUNDEXCHANGE, INC. and AMERICANASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT MUSIC,Defendants.No. 12-CV-2259 (TPG)
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT SOUNDEXCHANGE,INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS ALL COUNTS OF THE COMPLAINT
Case 1:12-cv-02259-TPG Document 16 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 31
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage No.
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................3
I.
The Statutory and Regulatory Framework ...........................................................................3
II.
Sirius, SoundExchange, and the CRB Proceedings .............................................................5
III.
Sirius’s Direct License Campaign .......................................................................................6
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................7
I.
Section 114’s Express Antitrust Exemption Bars Plaintiffs Claims ....................................7
II.
Sirius’s Claims Must Be Dismissed Under The Filed Rate Doctrine AndFor Their Related Failure To Plead Any Cognizable Injury ..............................................11
A.
All of Sirius’s Claims Are Barred By The Filed Rate Doctrine ............................11
B.
Sirius Has No Standing Because There Is No Antitrust Injury .............................14
III.
The Sherman Act Section 2 Claims Must Be Dismissed Because TheComplaint Does Not Allege Unlawful Monopolization ....................................................16
IV.
The Sherman Act Section 1 Claims Must Be Dismissed Because TheComplaint Does Not Plausibly Allege Price-Fixing Or A Prohibited“Boycott” ...........................................................................................................................18
A.
Count 1 Must Be Dismissed Because Sirius Has Alleged NoConduct Falling Within Any Per Se Rule Of Antitrust Liability...........................18
B.
Both Section 1 Counts Must Be Dismissed Under
Twombly
And
Iqbal
Because Their Allegations Are Implausible Or Conclusory ........................20
V.
The Tortious Interference Claims Fail To Plead Any Wrongful Act ................................23
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................25
Case 1:12-cv-02259-TPG Document 16 Filed 05/07/12 Page 2 of 31
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)C
ASES
Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Central Office Tel., Inc.
,524 U.S. 214 (1998) .................................................................................................................12
Anderson News, L.L.C. v. American Media, Inc.
,No. 10-4591-cv, 2012 WL 1085948 (2d Cir. Apr. 3, 2012) ....................................................20
Apex Oil Co. v. DiMauro
,713 F. Supp. 587 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)...........................................................................................19
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
,556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................22
Balaklaw v. Lovell,
14 F.3d 793 (2d Cir. 1994).......................................................................................................20
Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
,550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................7, 20, 21, 22
Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB
,437 U.S. 483 (1978) .................................................................................................................11
Bogan v. Hodgkins
,166 F.3d 509 (2d Cir. 1999).....................................................................................................20
Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.
,429 U.S. 477 (1977) .................................................................................................................15
Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.
,282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002).....................................................................................................10
City of Pittsburgh v. West Penn Power Co.
,147 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 1998).....................................................................................................15
Diario El Pais, S.L. v. Nielson Co.
,No. 07CV11295, 2008 WL 4833012 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2008) ..............................................24
Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.
,365 U.S. 127 (1961) .................................................................................................................23
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc.,
504 U.S. 451 (1992) ...........................................................................................................16, 17
Fairdale Farms, Inc. v. Yankee Milk, Inc.
,635 F.2d 1037 (2d Cir. 1980)...................................................................................................17
Case 1:12-cv-02259-TPG Document 16 Filed 05/07/12 Page 3 of 31
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
