UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Plaintiff - Counterclaim Defendant
) Civil Action No. 1:06cv00984 EGS
DC KICKBALL, et al.
Defendants - Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
COUNTERCLAIMS AND/OR 12(c) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
COMES NOW, WAKA, LLC (hereinafter “WAKA” or “Counterclaim Defendant”), and
submits this reply memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss or alternative motion for
judgment on the pleadings. The memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss does not
address the motion for judgment on the pleadings instead relying on the well pleaded complaint
rule to address the motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, as the counterclaims as plead can afford no
relief, they should be dismissed.
As set forth in the motion to dismiss, an antitrust claim cannot be plead in a conclusory
fashion but must set forth the following allegations: 1) it must also allege an anticompetitive
impact on the market 2) reflecting the anticompetitive effect either of the violation or of
anticompetitive acts made possible by the violation. The injury for which damages are sought
must be alleged to have resulted from losses stemming from a competition-reducing aspect or
effect of the defendant's behavior. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328,
344, 109 L. Ed. 2d 333, 110 S. Ct. 1884 (1990).
WAKA LLC v. DCKICKBALL et al
Although DC Kickball contends that it “clearly has alleged antitrust injury,” an examination
of the allegations shows no such thing. Nowhere in the counterclaim is it pled that WAKA’s
conduct is anticompetitive, that it has reduced or is reducing competition, has restrained or is
restraining trade, or has forced or is forcing competitors out of the market. Indeed, i