Case: 1:21-cv-00430 Document #: 92-1 Filed: 09/07/22 Page 1 of 31 PageID #:346
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:21-cv-00430
`
`Honorable Andrea R. Wood
`
`MYA BATTON, AARON BOLTON,
`MICHAEL BRACE, DO YEON KIM, ANNA
`JAMES, JAMES MULLIS, THEODORE
`BISBICOS, and DANIEL PARSONS,
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
`REALTORS, REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP.,
`HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., BHH
`AFFILIATES, LLC, HSF AFFILIATES, LLC,
`THE LONG & FOSTER COMPANIES, INC.,
`RE/MAX, LLC, and KELLER WILLIAMS
`REALTY, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULES 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00430 Document #: 92-1 Filed: 09/07/22 Page 2 of 31 PageID #:347
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 2
`I.
`ALL OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FAIL BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS, WHO ARE
`HOME BUYERS, ARE FAR REMOVED FROM DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGED
`CONDUCT. ....................................................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ Pleading of the Federal Antitrust Claim for Injunctive Relief Is
`Unchanged and Should Again Be Dismissed. ....................................................... 3
`Plaintiffs’ State-Law Claims Fail Because Plaintiffs Do Not Establish
`Causation................................................................................................................ 4
`PLAINTIFFS’ FEDERAL AND STATE ANTITRUST CLAIMS FAIL
`BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS DO NOT ALLEGE A PLAUSIBLE RELEVANT
`ANTITRUST MARKET. .................................................................................................. 6
`PLAINTIFFS’ STATE-LAW CLAIMS ARE MERITLESS. ......................................... 10
`A.
`All of the State-Law Claims Fail to Satisfy Rule 8’s Pleading
`Requirements or to State a Claim on the Merits Because They Simply
`Repeat a Failed Indirect Purchaser Claim. ........................................................... 11
`Plaintiffs Also Fail to State a Claim on a State-By-State Basis. .......................... 13
`1.
`Plaintiffs Lack Article III Standing to Bring 33 Claims in States
`Where No Named Plaintiff Resides or Purchased a Home. ..................... 13
`All Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Untimely. ....................................................... 14
`Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim Under the Tennessee Antitrust and
`Consumer Protection Statutes and for Unjust Enrichment [Applies
`to Three State-Law Claims]. .................................................................... 16
`Plaintiffs Have Failed to State a Claim Under North Carolina
`Consumer Protection Law [Applies to One State-Law Claim]. .............. 17
`Plaintiffs Have Failed to State a Claim Under Kansas Consumer
`Protection Law [Applies to One State-Law Claim]. ................................ 18
`Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, and North
`Carolina Do Not Permit an Unjust Enrichment Claim Where There
`is a Remedy Available at Law—Even if that Remedy is Unlikely
`to Succeed [Applies to Six State-Law Claims]. ....................................... 18
`DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE IS WARRANTED BECAUSE AMENDMENT
`WOULD BE FUTILE. ..................................................................................................... 19
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 20
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00430 Document #: 92-1 Filed: 09/07/22 Page 3 of 31 PageID #:348
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Abraham v. WPX Energy Prod., LLC,
`20 F. Supp. 3d 1244 (D.N.M. 2014) ........................................................................................18
`
`Aceto Corp. v. TherapeuticsMD, Inc.,
`953 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (S.D. Fla. 2013) ....................................................................................18
`
`In re Actos End Payor Antitrust Litig.,
`2015 WL 5610752 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2015) .........................................................................12
`
`In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litig.,
`94 F. Supp. 3d 224 (D. Conn. 2015) ............................................................................ 11, 12-13
`
`Agnew v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n,
`683 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 2012) .....................................................................................................6
`
`Airborne Beepers & Video, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility LLC,
`499 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................20
`
`Altman v. Bayer Corp.,
`125 F. Supp. 2d 666 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ........................................................................................5
`
`In re Androgel Antitrust Litig. (No. II),
`687 F. Supp. 2d 1371 (N.D. Ga. 2010) ....................................................................................12
`
`Arreola v. Godinez,
`546 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................14
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...........................................................................................................11, 12
`
`Bennett v. Visa U.S.A. Inc.,
`198 S.W.3d 747 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) ...................................................................................16
`
`Bergstrom v. Noah,
`974 P.2d 520 (Kan. 1999) ..........................................................................................................9
`
`Bogie v. Rosenberg,
`705 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................19
`
`Boulware v. Nev. Dep’t of Human Res.,
`960 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1992) .....................................................................................................9
`
`Branscum v. 4-J Harvestore, Inc.,
`886 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1989) .....................................................................................................5
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00430 Document #: 92-1 Filed: 09/07/22 Page 4 of 31 PageID #:349
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Broad. Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc.,
`441 U.S. 1 (1979) ............................................................................................................... 6, 6-7
`
`Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va.,
`747 S.E.2d 220 (N.C. 2013) .......................................................................................................4
`
`In re Bystolic Antitrust Litig.,
`--- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2022 WL 323945 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2022) ...............................................12
`
`In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig.,
`154 F. Supp. 3d 918 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .....................................................................................13
`
`Craft v. Forklift Sys., Inc.,
`2003 WL 21642767 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 14, 2003) ......................................................... 16-17
`
`DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,
`547 U.S. 332 (2006) .................................................................................................................13
`
`In re Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc. Cheese Antitrust Litig.,
`2013 WL 4506000 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2013) ..........................................................................13
`
`In re Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc. Cheese Antitrust Litig.,
`2015 WL 3988488 (N.D. Ill. June 29, 2015) .............................................................................4
`
`Davitashvili v. Grubhub Inc.,
`2022 WL 958051 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2022) .............................................................................9
`
`In re Dealer Mgmt. Sys. Antitrust Litig.,
`362 F. Supp. 3d 510 (N.D. Ill. 2019) .........................................................................................4
`
`Eley v. Mid/E. Acceptance Corp. of N.C.,
`614 S.E.2d 555 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005) ......................................................................................17
`
`Feitler v. Animation Celection, Inc.,
`13 P.3d 1044 (Or. Ct. App. 2000) ..............................................................................................5
`
`Ferreira v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc.,
`130 F. Supp. 3d 471 (D. Mass. 2015) ..................................................................................4, 18
`
`Freeman Indus., LLC v. Eastman Chem. Co.,
`172 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2005) ..................................................................................................16
`
`Galloway v. Priority Imports Richmond, LLC,
`426 F. Supp. 3d 236 (E.D. Va. 2019) ........................................................................................5
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00430 Document #: 92-1 Filed: 09/07/22 Page 5 of 31 PageID #:350
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Garcia v. City of Chi.,
`24 F.3d 966 (7th Cir. 1994) .....................................................................................................19
`
`In re Generic Pharms. Pricing Antitrust Litig.,
`368 F. Supp. 3d 814 (E.D. Pa. 2019) .........................................................................................5
`
`Hinchliffe v. Am. Motors Corp.,
`440 A.2d 810 (Conn. 1981) .......................................................................................................4
`
`Hinson v. United Fin. Servs., Inc.,
`473 S.E.2d 382 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996) ................................................................................ 18-19
`
`International Equipment Trading, Ltd. v. AB SCIEX LLC,
`2013 WL 4599903 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 29, 2013) ............................................................................6
`
`Jarrett v. Panasonic Corp. of N. Am.,
`8 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (E.D. Ark. 2013) .........................................................................................5
`
`Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Guilford Cnty.,
`34 S.E.2d 430 (N.C. 1945) .......................................................................................................19
`
`Kanne v. Visa U.S.A. Inc.,
`723 N.W.2d 293 (Neb. 2006).....................................................................................................5
`
`Kenneth F. Hackett & Assocs., Inc. v. GE Cap. Info. Tech. Sols., Inc.,
`744 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (S.D. Fla. 2010) ......................................................................................4
`
`Lewis v. Casey,
`518 U.S. 343 (1996) .............................................................................................................1, 14
`
`Lizza v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co.,
`1 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1121 (D. Haw. 2014) .................................................................................5
`
`Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) .................................................................................................................13
`
`Madison Cablevision, Inc. v. City of Morganton,
`386 S.E.2d 200 (N.C. 1989) .......................................................................................................9
`
`McLamb v. T.P. Inc.,
`619 S.E.2d 577, 582-83 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005) .........................................................................17
`
`Miami Prods. & Chem. Co. v. Olin Corp.,
`546 F. Supp. 3d 223 (W.D.N.Y. 2021) ..............................................................................11, 12
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00430 Document #: 92-1 Filed: 09/07/22 Page 6 of 31 PageID #:351
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Minnesota v. Road Constructors,
`1996 Minn. App. LEXIS 597 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996) ................................................................5
`
`Moehrl v. Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors,
`492 F. Supp. 3d 768 (N.D. Ill. 2020) .........................................................................................1
`
`Moore v. Mars Petcare US, Inc.,
`966 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................5
`
`Morlan v. Universal Guar. Life Ins. Co.,
`298 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................14
`
`Murphy v. Stonewall Kitchen, LLC,
`503 S.W.3d 308 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016) ........................................................................................5
`
`Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Alston,
`141 S. Ct. 2141 (2021) ...............................................................................................................7
`
`Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okla.,
`468 U.S. 85 (1984) .....................................................................................................................7
`
`Nevada ex rel. Nenzel v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct. in & for Washoe Cnty.,
`241 P. 317 (Nev. 1925) ............................................................................................................18
`
`NYNEX Corp. v. Discon, Inc.,
`525 U.S. 128 (1998) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`O’Riordan v. Long Island Bd. of Realtors, Inc.,
`707 F. Supp. 111 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ............................................................................................7
`
`Ohio v. Am. Express Co. (“Amex”),
`138 S. Ct. 2274 (2018) ...........................................................................................................1, 8
`
`In re Opana ER Antitrust Litig.,
`162 F. Supp. 3d 704 (N.D. Ill. 2016) .................................................................................14, 15
`
`In re Photochromic Lens Antitrust Litig.,
`2011 WL 13141933 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 26, 2011) .......................................................................18
`
`Pierce v. PrimeRevenue, Inc.,
`2017 WL 4552136 (D. Kan. Oct. 12, 2017) ............................................................................18
`
`PLS.com, LLC v. Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors,
`516 F. Supp. 3d 1047 (C.D. Cal. 2021) .....................................................................................7
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00430 Document #: 92-1 Filed: 09/07/22 Page 7 of 31 PageID #:352
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antirust Litig.,
`2019 WL 4796528 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 21, 2019)........................................................................15
`
`Reed v. AFNI, Inc.,
`2011 WL 112430 (D. Utah Jan. 13, 2011) .................................................................................5
`
`Right Field Rooftops v. Chi. Baseball Holdings, LLC,
`87 F. Supp. 3d 874 (N.D. Ill. 2015) ...........................................................................................6
`
`Romero v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
`242 P.3d 280 (N.M. 2010) .........................................................................................................9
`
`Rustom v. Rustom,
`2019 WL 4034620 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2019) ............................................................................3
`
`Sharp Elecs. Corp. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.,
`578 F.3d 505 (7th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 3-4
`
`Sherwood v. Microsoft Corp.,
`2003 WL 21780975 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2003) ...............................................................16
`
`Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org.,
`426 U.S. 26 (1976) ...................................................................................................................13
`
`Southard v. Visa U.S.A. Inc.,
`734 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa 2007) ....................................................................................................5
`
`Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of R.I.,
`239 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D.R.I. 2003).............................................................................................5
`
`Supreme Auto Transp., LLC v. Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc.,
`902 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................4, 5
`
`United States v. Realty Multi-List, Inc.,
`629 F.2d 1351 (5th Cir. 1980) ...................................................................................................7
`
`Warfield v. Hicks,
`370 S.E.2d 689 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988) ......................................................................................17
`
`In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litig.,
`260 F.R.D. 143 (E.D. Pa. 2009) ...............................................................................................12
`
`White v. Wyeth,
`705 S.E.2d 828 (W. Va. 2010) ...................................................................................................5
`
`-vi-
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00430 Document #: 92-1 Filed: 09/07/22 Page 8 of 31 PageID #:353
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Rsch., Inc.,
`395 U.S. 100 (1969) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Statutes
`
`Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-512 ...............................................................................................................14
`
`Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 598A.050 ....................................................................................................9
`
`Other Authorities
`
`David S. Evans, The Antitrust Economics of Two-Sided Markets, Yale Journal on
`Regulation, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2003 ...............................................................................................8
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ..................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Jean-Charles Rochet and Jean Tirole, Platform Competition in Two-Sided
`Markets, Journal of the European Economic Association 1, no. 4, 990-1029
`(2003) .........................................................................................................................................8
`
`Jean-Charles Rochet and Jean Tirole, Two-Sided Markets: A Progress Report,
`The RAND Journal of Economics 37, no. 3, 645-67 (2006) .....................................................8
`
`Stephen Brobeck & Patrick Woodall, How the Real Estate Cartel Harms
`Consumers and How Consumers Can Protect Themselves, Consumer Fed’n of
`Am., at 4 (June 2006), https://consumerfed.org/wp-
`content/uploads/2006/06/6-19-06-Real-Estate-Cartel_Report.pdf.) ........................................15
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00430 Document #: 92-1 Filed: 09/07/22 Page 9 of 31 PageID #:354
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In their Amended Class Action Complaint (“ACAC”), Plaintiffs do not address this Court’s
`
`prior dismissal order by alleging new facts; they merely use the same facts to reassert the
`
`previously dismissed federal antitrust claim and add over three dozen derivative state-law claims.
`
`Critically, Plaintiffs did not address the core reason the Court dismissed the first complaint—that
`
`under the facts alleged, Plaintiffs are too far removed from the alleged conduct to show it
`
`proximately caused their alleged injuries. Moreover, Plaintiffs fail to allege a relevant antitrust
`
`market or satisfy the essential elements of their myriad state-law claims.
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed for the following reasons:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs fail to fix the issues with their federal claim for injunctive relief. The
`Court already determined that Plaintiffs, who are buyers of real estate, did not have
`antitrust standing to pursue injunctive relief because there already are seller class
`actions—and since Plaintiffs pay sellers, the sellers are closer to the alleged
`conduct. Memorandum Opinion and Order (“Mem. Op. & Order”) ECF No. 81;
`see, e.g., Moehrl v. Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors, 492 F. Supp. 3d 768 (N.D. Ill. 2020).
`Plaintiffs do not plead any new facts that more directly tie Defendants’ alleged
`conduct to their alleged injury.
`
`Plaintiffs do not allege a plausible, relevant antitrust market. Plaintiffs fail to
`allege facts showing a relevant antitrust market that complies with Ohio v. Am.
`Express Co. (“Amex”), 138 S. Ct. 2274 (2018).
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are untimely. Plaintiffs cannot recover damages for conduct
`that occurred in 1996, and their untimely claims are not saved by the doctrines of
`fraudulent concealment or continuing violations.
`
`Plaintiffs do not sufficiently plead their state-law antitrust and consumer
`protection claims under Rule 8. Plaintiffs added a list of various state laws under
`which they bring claims without additional or specific factual allegations. These
`include thirty-three claims under state laws where no Plaintiff has purchased a
`home, prohibiting them from availing themselves of those states’ laws. See Lewis
`v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 357-58 (1996) (holding that Plaintiffs “must allege and
`show that they personally have been injured, not that injury has been suffered by
`other, unidentified members of the class to which they belong and which they
`purport to represent.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis
`added)). Similarly, Plaintiffs failed to plead facts that show Defendants’ alleged
`conduct caused Plaintiffs’ harm, and many of Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00430 Document #: 92-1 Filed: 09/07/22 Page 10 of 31 PageID #:355
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims are an ineffectual back-up plan. Unjust
`enrichment is not viable where there is a legal claim; Plaintiffs’ antitrust and
`consumer protection claims foreclose this equitable claim, and undifferentiated
`state law claims do not satisfy Rule 8.
`
`Therefore, the undersigned Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss the
`
`ACAC with prejudice.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`ALL OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FAIL BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS, WHO ARE
`HOME BUYERS, ARE FAR REMOVED FROM DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGED
`CONDUCT.
`
`The allegations in Plaintiffs’ ACAC related to real estate industry practices are nearly
`
`identical to those asserted in the dismissed Class Action Complaint, and the facts relevant to this
`
`motion did not change with the amendment. In a typical residential real estate transaction, a home
`
`seller enters into a contract called a listing agreement, with a listing broker. ACAC ¶ 48. The
`
`listing agreement provides that the home seller will pay a commission to their listing broker if the
`
`home sells. Id. The listing agreement also often provides that the listing broker will share a portion
`
`of the commission with the broker who procures a buyer for the home. Id. ¶¶ 48-49. If a buyer’s
`
`broker is paid a commission, the buyer broker is “paid through the seller broker [i.e., the listing
`
`broker].” Id. ¶ 87; accord id. ¶ 51. Moreover, as the Court recognized and explained in its Order
`
`dismissing the first complaint: “[H]ome sellers not only set the total commission price, but they
`
`also agree in their listing agreements to pay that price. On the other hand, the buyer’s agreement
`
`with their buyer-broker typically makes clear that a third-party (i.e., the seller) will be responsible
`
`for the broker’s fees.” Mem. Op. & Order at 10. Since the offer of compensation is extended from
`
`the listing broker to the buyer broker, neither the seller nor the buyer pays the buyer broker’s
`
`commission directly. Critical to this case, the buyer pays only the home seller, who pays the listing
`
`broker, who pays the buyer broker.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00430 Document #: 92-1 Filed: 09/07/22 Page 11 of 31 PageID #:356
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs allege that they are harmed because Defendants’ alleged conduct has inflated the
`
`commissions that are paid by listing brokers to buyer brokers, which then increase commissions
`
`paid by seller, which then “are incorporated into the home purchase price, thereby causing buyers
`
`to pay higher prices for homes.” ACAC ¶ 114. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ alleged injury is at least two
`
`steps removed from the alleged conduct. Those two steps of separation supported the Court’s
`
`dismissal on indirect purchaser grounds, and they also support dismissal of the state-law claims on
`
`causation, harm, and proximate cause grounds.
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Pleading of the Federal Antitrust Claim for Injunctive Relief Is
`Unchanged and Should Again Be Dismissed.
`
`On May 2, 2022, the Court dismissed all claims, including the claim under the federal
`
`antitrust laws seeking only injunctive relief. Specifically, the Court dismissed this case because
`
`“the more directly injured home seller plaintiffs in Moehrl are seeking the same injunction” and
`
`“the CAC expressly acknowledges that ‘[m]ost people purchase . . . and sell homes only a few
`
`times in their lives,’ (CAC ¶ 2), and Leeder has already purchased his home and does not allege
`
`that he intends to purchase a new home in the future. It therefore does not appear that Leeder faces
`
`‘a significant threat of injury from an impending violation of the antitrust laws or from a
`
`contemporary violation likely to continue or recur.’” Mem. Op. & Order at 17 (citing Zenith Radio
`
`Corp. v. Hazeltine Rsch., Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 130 (1969)). Ignoring that decision, Plaintiffs have
`
`reasserted that identical claim, see ACAC ¶ 155, without adding, removing, or modifying any
`
`factual allegations that address the key deficiency previously identified by the Court. Plaintiffs
`
`have provided no reason to revisit that earlier decision, and thus they have failed to state a claim.
`
`See Rustom v. Rustom, 2019 WL 4034620, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2019) (dismissing amended
`
`complaint where court already ruled on elements of re-pleaded claim because “a single court
`
`should not revisit its earlier rulings unless there is a compelling reason to do so.”) (quoting Sharp
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00430 Document #: 92-1 Filed: 09/07/22 Page 12 of 31 PageID #:357
`
`
`
`Elecs. Corp. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 505, 510 (7th Cir. 2009)). Therefore, for the same
`
`reasons as the Court’s prior dismissal, Plaintiffs lack standing to bring injunctive claims under the
`
`federal antitrust laws.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ State-Law Claims Fail Because Plaintiffs Do Not Establish
`Causation.
`
`Every state-law claim in the ACAC requires that Plaintiffs establish that Defendants’
`
`conduct caused Plaintiffs’ alleged injury. See, e.g., Supreme Auto Transp., LLC v. Arcelor Mittal
`
`USA, Inc., 902 F.3d 735, 743-44 (7th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal of state-law antitrust claims,
`
`after plaintiff failed to plead federal antitrust claim, for lack of “proximate causation” or “antitrust
`
`standing” where plaintiffs merely alleged that defendant’s conduct indirectly caused plaintiffs to
`
`pay an inflated price); In re Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc. Cheese Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL 3988488,
`
`at *9, *16 (N.D. Ill. June 29, 2015) (dismissing Kansas antitrust claims because “Indirect
`
`Plaintiffs’ injuries are too remote and speculative to afford them antitrust standing”); Ferreira v.
`
`Sterling Jewelers, Inc., 130 F. Supp. 3d 471, 478 (D. Mass. 2015) (“To succeed on a claim under
`
`chapter 93A, a plaintiff must demonstrate that she suffered a ‘separate, identifiable harm arising
`
`from the violation itself that bears a causal connection to the unfair or deceptive act.”’) (citation
`
`omitted); Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va., 747 S.E.2d 220, 226 (N.C. 2013) (holding plaintiffs
`
`must demonstrate proximate causation, not merely that defendants engaged in a proscribed
`
`practice); Kenneth F. Hackett & Assocs., Inc. v. GE Cap. Info. Tech. Sols., Inc., 744 F. Supp. 2d
`
`1305, 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (holding Florida’s consumer protection law “has three elements: (1)
`
`a deceptive act or unfair practice; (2) causation; and (3) actual damages.”) (internal quotation
`
`marks and citation omitted).1
`
`
`1 See also In re Dealer Mgmt. Sys. Antitrust Litig., 362 F. Supp. 3d 510, 545 (N.D. Ill. 2019)
`(holding Plaintiffs must plead proximate causation to state a claim for an antitrust violation in
`Arizona, D.C., Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00430 Document #: 92-1 Filed: 09/07/22 Page 13 of 31 PageID #:358
`
`
`
`For example, in Supreme Auto, indirect purchasers sued steel producers asserting they
`
`conspired to cut output and increase prices of steel consumer goods. 902 F.3d at 737. Plaintiffs
`
`only brought claims for antitrust violations in states that repealed Illinois Brick, arguing that, where
`
`Illinois Brick did not apply, they had a viable claim as indirect purchasers. Id. at 743-44. The
`
`Seventh Circuit disagreed and affirmed the dismissal of all state-law claims, holding that plaintiffs
`
`still had to demonstrate proximate cause and that the higher prices plaintiffs claim they paid were
`
`too attenuated from the alleged conspiracy. Id. Just like in Supreme Auto, under the facts alleged
`
`in the ACAC, there are multiple factors that go into the price buyers pay for a home and at least
`
`two groups of people stand between Plaintiffs as home purchasers and Defendants—sellers and
`
`listing brokers. The ACAC does not allege any facts to support the assumption that the listing
`
`
`Wisconsin); Hinchliffe v. Am. Motors Corp., 440 A.2d 810, 814 (Conn. 1981) (same, applying
`Connecticut antitrust law); Lizza v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 1 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1121 (D.
`Haw. 2014), aff’d sub nom. Lizza v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 714 F. App’x 620 (9th Cir. 2017)
`(same, applying Hawaii antitrust law); In re Generic Pharms. Pricing Antitrust Litig., 368 F. Supp.
`3d 814, 834 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (same, applying Illinois antitrust law); Southard v. Visa U.S.A. Inc.,
`734 N.W.2d 192, 198-99 (Iowa 2007) (same, applying Iowa antitrust law); Minnesota v. Road
`Constructors, 1996 Minn. App. LEXIS 597, at *5 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996) (same, applying
`Minnesota antitrust); Kanne v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 723 N.W.2d 293, 298-99 (Neb. 2006) (same,
`applying Nebraska antitrust); Altman v. Bayer Corp., 125 F. Supp. 2d 666, 672 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
`(same, applying New York antitrust law); Feitler v. Animation Celection, Inc., 13 P.3d 1044, 1047
`(Or. Ct. App. 2000) (same, applying Oregon antitrust law); Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Blue
`Cross & Blue Shield of R.I., 239 F. Supp. 2d 180, 194 (D.R.I. 2003), aff’d sub nom. Stop & Shop
`Supermarket Co. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of R.I., 373 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2004) (same, applying
`Rhode Island antitrust law); Jarrett v. Panasonic Corp. of N. Am., 8 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 1084 (E.D.
`Ark. 2013) (same, applying Arkansas consumer protection law); Moore v. Mars Petcare US, Inc.,
`966 F.3d 1007, 1020 (9th Cir. 2020) (same, applying California consumer protection law);
`Branscum v. 4-J Harvestore, Inc., 886 F.2d 334, *5 (9th Cir. 1989) (same, applying Idaho
`consumer protection law); Murphy v. Stonewall Kitchen, LLC, 503 S.W.3d 308, 311 (Mo. Ct. App.
`2016) (same, applying Missouri consumer protection law); Feitler, 13 P.3d at 1047 (same,
`applying Oregon consumer protection law); Reed v. AFNI, Inc., 2011 WL 112430, at *3 (D. Utah
`Jan. 13, 2011) (same, applying Utah consumer protection law); Galloway v. Priority Imports
`Richmond, LLC, 426 F. Supp. 3d 236, 244 (E.D. Va. 2019) (same, applying Virginia consumer
`protection law); White v. Wyeth, 705 S.E.2d 828, 838 (W. Va. 2010) (same, applying West Virginia
`consumer protection law).
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00430 Document #: 92-1 Filed: 09/07/22 Page 14 of 31 PageID #:359
`
`
`
`broker who pays the buyer broker passes on any amount of this payment to the seller or that the
`
`seller then passes on any amount to the home buyer. Absent such facts, the ACAC fails to allege
`
`sufficiently that Defendants proximately caused the injuries about which Plaintiffs complain.
`
`Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts showing Defendants are the proximate cause
`
`of Plaintiffs’ alleged injury under the state laws.
`
`II.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ FEDERAL AND STATE ANTITRUST CLAIMS FAIL BECAUSE
`PLAINTIFFS DO NOT ALLEGE A PLAUSIBLE RELEVANT ANTITRUST
`MARKET.
`
`For the reasons addressed in Defendants’ briefing in support of their first Motion to
`
`Dismiss, Plaintiffs have not pled a per se antitrust violation, see Reply Br. (ECF No. 67) at 10-11,
`
`and thus they must plead a plausible relevant