Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—2d Cir.: Veteran-owned construction company that pursued government contracts fails to revive antitrust claims, (Apr 21, 2026)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

The veterans’ complaint failed to allege conduct with a plausible adverse effect on competition as a whole.

The federal district court in New York City properly dismissed Sherman Act claims filed by a veteran-owned small business against the City of New York for failure to allege market-wide harm, where improperly-obtained state default judgments disrupted only its own business, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The business also failed to plead a violation of its due process rights for a Section 1983 claim where the state court could not have prevented entry of the improper default judgments. The Second Circuit said precedent made it clear that there is no deprivation of due process, even if state employees intentionally deprive an individual of property or liberty, so long as the state provides a meaningful post-deprivation remedy. Precedent also made it clear that state remedies are adequate for due process purposes even though a petitioner may not be able to secure the same relief as in a § 1983 suit. The Second Circuit did not find any abuse of discretion where the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims (Ams. Choice Veterans Constr. Inc. v. City of New York, No. 25-1380 (2d Cir. Apr. 20, 2026)).

Background. Americas Choice Veterans Construction, Inc., a disabled veteran -owned small business registered in New York, and two of its veteran co-founders (collectively, ACVCI), sued New York City (NYC), Teachers Federal Credit Union (TFCU), and three natural person consultants. ACVCI alleged, among other things, that improperly-obtained sewer service default judgments in the City Court of the City of New York (small claims court) caused bank account levies that disrupted their business and caused lost time and effort in moving to vacate the judgments. ACVCI asserted ten different causes of action, principally, claims for violation of the Sherman Act and a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The district court granted the defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The district court reasoned the ACVCI plaintiffs had the benefit of due process when they succeeded on their motion for vacatur of the judgments. Essentially, adequate post-deprivation remedies satisfied the constitutional right to due process. The district court accordingly held the plaintiffs could not seek damages based on a due process claim in the absence of a violation of due process. ACVCI appealed, but on de novo review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal in all respects.

Sherman Act. The Second Circuit agreed with the district court determination that ACVCI failed to plead facts plausibly establishing a Sherman Act violation inasmuch as the defendants’ actions did not affect the market as a whole. ACVCI did not carry its initial burden of pleading an adverse effect on competition as a whole. At most, ACVCI asserted their former consultants’ actions temporarily prevented them from bidding on government contracts. The alleged disruption to only their own business did not have any effect on the market.

ACVCI argued the district court should have found a per se violation of the Sherman Act because the consultant defendants’ acts would always or almost always tend to restrict competition and decrease output. However, the Second Circuit reasoned that even if that were true, allegations of harm to only the plaintiffs’ own business would still fail to show harm to competition in the market as a whole.

Due process. ACVCI maintained the state small claims court could not have prevented the deprivation from occurring in the first place, hence the district court must have erred in reasoning that adequate post-deprivation procedures were curative, but the Second Circuit rejected this argument. The Second Circuit said precedent “squarely holds” there is no violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when state employees intentionally deprive an individual of property or liberty so long as the state provides a meaningful post-deprivation remedy.

The Second Circuit noted the ACVCI plaintiffs did not dispute that the New York State small claims court ultimately vacated the default judgment and that their seized funds were returned to them with interest. They did not allege any state refusal to provide a suitable post-deprivation remedy. They argued instead that the post-deprivation remedy was not as plaintiff-friendly as a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, the Second Circuit said the case law also made it clear that state remedies are adequate for due process purposes even though a petitioner may not be able to secure the same relief as in a § 1983 suit.

Supplemental jurisdiction. Last, the Second Circuit affirmed that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining ACVCI state law claims on dismissal of the federal law claims. The Second Circuit said ACVCI did not advance any argument for diverging from the usual rule that a district court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if there are no viable federal law claims.

The Case is No. 25-1380.

Judge: Chin, D.

Attorneys: Meredith Karp (Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP) for Americas Choice Veterans Construction Inc. Ingrid Gustafson, New York City Law Department, for City of New York.

Companies: Americas Choice Veterans Construction Inc.

Cases: Antitrust ConnecticutNews NewYorkNews VermontNews