Poorsina v. Tseng

Background

Ali Poorsina sued Tan Tseng and other defendants. The opinion addresses Poorsina's antitrust claim concerning an auction and notes that his mail-fraud claim had previously been dismissed with prejudice. Poorsina proceeded without a lawyer.

Poorsina alleged that Tseng and a co-conspirator named Steve communicated by cellphone during the auction and agreed when Steve would stop bidding so Tseng's bid would prevail. He also alleged that he and his family were evicted from their home, where they operated a childcare business, and that he lost the home and business as a result.

Court's Analysis

The court held that the new allegations adequately supplied factual content supporting the conspiracy element of Poorsina's antitrust claim. Although the allegations were not highly specific, the court concluded that, read liberally because Poorsina was unrepresented, they plausibly suggested an agreement to engage in bid-rigging. The court described bid-rigging as a per se violation of the Sherman Act, meaning the conduct is treated as unlawful without requiring a separate showing of its effects on competition.

The court nevertheless found that Poorsina had not adequately alleged an antitrust injury, which is an injury caused by the type of harm antitrust laws are intended to prevent. The complaint's only alleged injury was the eviction and resulting loss of the home and childcare business. The court reasoned that Poorsina would have been evicted even if the bidding had not been rigged because the property had been foreclosed. Therefore, the eviction and business loss were not antitrust injuries.

At the hearing, Poorsina discussed having equity in the property that he did not recover after the foreclosure sale and distribution of the surplus among claimants. The court could not rule out that he might be able to allege an antitrust injury based on the property selling for less than it should have. The court also stated that its decision was based only on the complaint's allegations, not on video recordings Poorsina filed, because the recordings had poor audio and the relevant people could not be identified without further direction.

Disposition

Judge Vince Chhabria granted the motion to dismiss. The dismissal was with leave to amend, and the amended complaint was due within 28 days of the order; defendants' response was due within 21 days after the amended complaint was filed. The amended complaint was limited to the antitrust claim. The opinion states that the mail-fraud claim had previously been dismissed with prejudice.