Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nevada Recycling and Salvage, Ltd. v. Reno Disposal Company, Inc.

Supreme Court of Nevada

August 2, 2018

NEVADA RECYCLING AND SALVAGE, LTD., A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND AMCB, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A RUBBISH RUNNERS, Appellants,
v.
RENO DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, D/B/A WASTE MANAGEMENT; REFUSE, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION; AND WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NEVADA, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, Respondents.

          Appeal from a district court order granting summary judgment in an unfair trade practice dispute. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Patrick Flanagan, Judge.

          Winter Street Law Group and Stephanie R. Rice, Delmar L. Hardy, and Richard A. Salvatore, Reno, for Appellants.

          Simons Law PC and Mark G. Simons, Reno, for Respondents.

         BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.

          OPINION

          DOUGLAS C.J.

         This case arises out of an alleged violation of the Nevada Unfair Trade Practice Act (UTPA). Appellants claim that respondents conspired with a third party to obtain exclusive franchise agreements with the City of Reno for the collection of waste and recyclable materials. According to appellants, this conspiracy precluded them from receiving a franchise agreement with the City of Reno. The question presented in this appeal is whether appellants have been injured in their business and therefore have standing to assert their claim under the UTPA.

         We conclude that appellants lack standing to bring an antitrust claim because they were unable to show that they suffered any injuries (i.e., damages).[1] Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of respondents.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Appellants Nevada Recycling and Salvage, Ltd. (Nevada Recycling) and AMCB, LLC, d/b/a Rubbish Runners (Rubbish Runners), brought this suit in district court under the Nevada Unfair Trade Practice Act for injunctive relief and treble damages. Nevada Recycling operates a facility that accepts, processes, recycles, and disposes of waste and recyclable materials. Rubbish Runners collects, hauls, and disposes of waste and recyclables for commercial accounts within the City of Reno. The gist of the complaint is that respondents Reno Disposal Company, Inc. (Reno Disposal), Refuse, Inc. (Refuse), and Waste Management of Nevada, Inc. (Waste Management), who are also collectors, haulers, and disposers of waste and recyclables for commercial accounts within the City of Reno, entered into a conspiracy with nonparty Castaway Trash Hauling (Castaway) for the explicit purpose of monopolizing the waste and recyclables market in the City of Reno.

         The City of Reno was looking to implement a single-stream recycling service. Reno Disposal proposed that the City of Reno create exclusive service areas whereby waste haulers would have an exclusive privilege to collect and dispose of waste and recyclable materials within their assigned area. The City of Reno agreed, and it was determined that Reno Disposal and Castaway would each receive exclusive commercial franchise agreements, servicing all of Reno.

         Proposed ordinances representing the franchise agreements were drafted and the Reno City Council conducted three public hearings in which the terms and conditions of the ordinances were discussed. At the first reading of the ordinances, Rubbish Runners spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance, concerned that the ordinances would put it out of business. In addressing Rubbish Runners' concerns, carve-outs and exemptions were included in the ordinances that allowed Rubbish Runners to keep its existing customers upon verification of its customers' contracts. Under the proposed ordinances, Rubbish Runners would not be allowed to expand to new customers and it was not allowed to haul certain types of materials. The ordinances were subsequently approved.

         Thereafter, Waste Management purchased Castaway and acquired all of Castaway's rights and duties held under the ordinance. Pursuant to authority granted under the ordinance, Waste Management then assigned its rights and duties held under the ordinance to Reno Disposal. As a result, Reno Disposal had exclusive rights to collect waste and recyclables in the City of Reno subject to the exemptions made for Rubbish Runners under the ordinance.

         Before the district court, appellants argued that respondents conspired with Castaway to create an illegal monopoly for Reno Disposal. Reno Disposal and Refuse moved for summary judgment, and Waste Management filed a joinder to the motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents, concluding that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine applied because respondents' conduct involved political and not business conduct. See Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Pennington,381 U.S. 657 (1965). In addition, the district court concluded that, in terms of damages, appellants lacked standing to assert an UTPA claim because they ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.