In Association of Taxicab Operators USA et al. v. Yellow Checker Cab Co. of Dallas/Fort Worth Inc. et al., Northern District of Texas Judge David C. Godbey dismissed price-fixing and predatory pricing claims against several defendants, but denied the a defendant’s request for antitrust immunity and let some merger and price fixing claims move forward.
Taxi drivers and the Association of Taxicab Operators USA, among other plaintiffs sued several cab companies alleging that the companies’ charge drivers permit fees that are predatorily low and that these fees rested on anticompetitive conspiratorial conduct and mergers. The plaintiffs alleged that although the cab market appeared to be competitive, two individuals effectively controlled companies with 52% of the market.
Defendants moved to dismiss, and the court held that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient allegations to support most of the claims. Judge Godbey explained that the “[p]laintiffs neither allege[d] nor c[a]me forward with summary judgment proof that defendants had the specific intent to monopolize.” Similarly, the plaintiffs failed to provide any grounds to conclude that defendants’ prices either were below cost or that the defendants’ could recoup losses if the prices were below cost. Finally, the conspiracy claims failed because the related nature of the companies essentially made them a single entity for antitrust purposes.
The court ruled against one defendant on the claim that its actions were protected by the state action doctrine. According to the court, the defendant failed to identify either (1) the municipal policy that authorized, or (2) how any government entity actively supervised, its allegedly anti-competitive conduct activity.
The suit will move forward on merger claims as well as some conspiratorial claims.