Anderson Bey v. Rocnation LLC

Background

Bernard T. Anderson Bey filed this self-represented action for himself and Team Zenith Platinum Status, Inc. against Roc Nation, LLC, Sean C. Carter, Corporate Creations Network, Inc., and Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. He identified the Sherman Antitrust Act as the federal law involved. The complaint alleged that the defendants were a monopoly in the hip-hop industry and had harmed Bey and his company by suppressing revenue, interfering with cryptocurrency investments and banking, hindering efforts to secure master-recording copyrights, blocking marketing and promotional efforts, disrupting performances and touring revenue, sabotaging social-media accounts, hacking his phone and laptop, and influencing law-enforcement investigations and other relationships.

Bey also filed five motions seeking preliminary injunctive relief, an emergency court order issued before final judgment. Those motions discussed matters that appeared unrelated to the claims against the named defendants, including a housing matter and a cryptocurrency issue.

Representation of the Company

The court held that Bey could represent himself without a lawyer, but he could not represent Team Zenith Platinum Status, Inc. A corporation or other artificial entity must appear through a lawyer. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice the claims Bey brought on behalf of Team Zenith Platinum Status, Inc.

Antitrust Claims

The court explained that Section 1 of the Sherman Act does not itself provide a private right to sue. It therefore interpreted Bey’s self-represented complaint as invoking the private right of action under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15.

A claim under the relevant antitrust law requires allegations showing that a defendant had monopoly power in a relevant market and willfully acquired or maintained that power, rather than gaining power through a superior product, business skill, or historical circumstances. The court held that Bey’s assertions did not support an inference that the defendants participated in monopolistic activity. The court therefore concluded that he failed to state a claim under the Clayton Act.

Requests for Preliminary Injunctions

To obtain a preliminary injunction, Bey had to show likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a sharply favorable balance of hardships. Because the court found that Bey had not stated a Clayton Act claim, it also found that he had not shown a likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions supporting emergency relief. The court denied requests listed as ECF Nos. 2–5 and 7 without prejudice to renewal later.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Bey 30 days to file an amended complaint alleging a valid Clayton Act claim against the defendants. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and include the facts and claims Bey wanted the court to consider. The court dismissed Bey’s claims against all defendants but granted leave to replead. If Bey did not timely amend and did not show good cause for failing to do so, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment consistent with the order and terminate the matter.

The court denied fee-free appeal status for any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Judge Engelmayer directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Bey and keep the matter open until judgment was entered.