Sherman Act Violation

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Chicago Studio Rental, Inc., et al. v. Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, et al.

Case No.: 18-3134

Officials: ROVNER, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Sherman Act Violation

For nearly 30 years, Chicago Studio Rental, Incorporated and Chicago Studio City Real Estate Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Chicago Studio”) operated the only film studio in Chicago, Illinois. That changed around 2010 when Chicago Film Studio Holdings, LLC and Chicago Film Studio Industrial Real Estate Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Cinespace”) opened a new studio. Within a handful of years, Cinespace rapidly expanded its studio to include 26 more stages and 24 times more floor space than Chicago Studio’s facility. Chicago Studio could not keep up, failed to attract production business, and ultimately stopped making a profit.

Chicago Studio sought to blame others for its demise and filed this action against the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, Illinois Film Office, and Betsy Steinberg—three Illinois state actors responsible for promoting the Illinois film industry. Chicago Studio alleged that Defendants unlawfully steered state incentives and business to Cinespace in violation of the Sherman Act and equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Sherman Act and due process claims. It later granted summary judgment on the equal protection claim. Chicago Studio now appeals these decisions on the Sherman Act and equal protection claims.

We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the Sherman Act claim because Chicago Studio failed to adequately plead an antitrust injury. The complaint merely alleges injuries to Chicago Studio, not to competition. We also conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment on the equal protection claim. Chicago Studio and Cinespace are not similarly situated, and there was a rational basis for Steinberg’s conduct. We further find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking Chicago Studio’s additional statement of facts for noncompliance.

Affirmed

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.