Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—W.D. Wash.: Sherman Act, RICO claims deemed frivolous, warranting sanctions, (Jan 8, 2016)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

Snohomish County, Washington, and the City of Gold Bar were entitled to attorney fees in a retaliation suit in which an individual filed frivolous Sherman Act and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims. The federal district court in Seattle granted the municipalities’ motion for attorney fees after finding twice that the individual’s claims were entirely groundless and frivolous and the plaintiff “vexatiously pursued this litigation in bad faith” (Block v. Snohomish County, January 5, 2016, Jones, R.).

The court initially found the individual’s retaliation claims to be groundless because: (1) she had failed to allege a connection between any retaliatory conduct and a defendant; and (2) even where such a connection was possible to infer, she had not plausibly pleaded that a retaliatory motive was a substantial factor for that conduct.

Although the court “reluctantly” allowed the plaintiff to amend her “vague and generic” complaint, the plaintiff did not heed the court’s instructions to remedy the various defects noted by the court. Instead, the plaintiff decided to expand “this already unwieldy action” and violated the court’s instructions by alleging new causes of action, the court noted.

Specifically, the new RICO claim failed because the plaintiff did not allege a predicate act. The Sherman Act claim also failed because the plaintiff could not plausibly allege that the Washington State Bar Association—an entity named in direct contravention to the court’s earlier order—had committed actions with an anticompetitive impact on the market for attorney services in Washington or that the actual defendants conspired with the bar association for any purpose. Lastly, the retaliation claim suffered from the same vagueness and plausibility issues that the court originally found.

Finding that the plaintiff continued her abusive conduct—such as using “profanity or abusive invective” in her communications and continuing to harass individual defendants—even after the court forbade such conduct, the court concluded that the plaintiff has “vexatiously pursued this litigation in bad faith.”

The case is No. C14-235RAJ.

Attorneys: Anne K. Block, pro se. Sean D. Reay, Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney, for Snohomish County. Michael R. Kenyon (Kenyon Disend, PLLC) for the City of Gold Bar.

Companies: Snohomish County; City of Gold Bar

Cases: Antitrust RICO WashingtonNews