Williams v. Citigroup Inc.

659 F.3d 208 (2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is an attorney licensed in the state of New York who specializes in structured finance. She has developed a patent-pending structure for Airline Special Facility bonds ('ASF bonds'), which are issued by municipalities to finance the construction and renovation of airport terminals. According to P, her structure is superior to that of existing ASF bonds and would provide benefits to airlines, municipalities, bondholders, and underwriting banks if it were adopted. D is a major underwriter of ASF bonds. P marketed her structure to D. D declined to adopt P's structure. P alleges that D, along with various rating agencies, airlines, and municipalities, conspired to block the use of P's structure to issue ASF bonds. P's complaint asserts eight causes of action. P alleges that D violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-2, by engaging in various conspiracies to boycott her structure and by monopolizing, attempting to monopolize and conspiring to monopolize the ASF bond market. P also alleges a violation of state law in that D tortiously interfered with P's employment contracts with two law firms; and that D tortiously interfered with D's business relationships with those firms. D moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The district court granted the motion to dismiss in that P failed to satisfy the pleading standard set forth in Iqbal and Twombly due to the absence of factual allegations plausibly suggesting that d violated the Sherman Act. The court then concluded that retention of jurisdiction over state law claims was proper because the state law claims could ''be determined without further trial proceedings and without entanglement with any difficult issues of state law.'' The court dismissed the Donnelly Act claim based on the same deficiencies it detected in the federal claims and dismissed the tortious interference claims for failure to allege certain elements required by New York law. P moved for reargument and reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). P sought to reopen the judgment and obtain leave to amend her original complaint so as to attempt to remedy the pleading defects identified in the dismissal order. The court denied the post-judgment motions. P appealed.