Deak-Perera Hawaii, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, State of Hawaii, and Citicorp (Usa), Inc., Intervenor-Appellee

Good Law
745 F.2d 1281·1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 17320
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 26, 198483-1552California858 words

Opinion

Opinion

Goodwin, J.

Deak-Perera lost its bid to retain the currency exchange concession at Honolulu International Airport when the Hawaii Department of Transportation awarded a five-year exclusive concession to Citicorp, the highest bidder. Alleging violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state bidding laws, Deak-Perera sued the state agency and two of its officials. We affirm the district court’s finding that the defendants were entitled to state action immunity from federal antitrust laws. Deak-Perera Hawaii, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 553 F.Supp. 976 (D.Haw.1983).

I. Antitrust immunity

Actions by “ ‘the State acting as sovereign,’ ” Hoover v. Ronwin, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 1989, 1998 , 80 L.Ed.2d 590 (1984), quoting Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 360 , 97 S.Ct. 2691, 2697 , 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977), are immune from the federal antitrust laws. If the State of Hawaii was acting in its sovereign capacity when it granted Citicorp the exclusive lease, it is immune from Deak-Perera’s antitrust challenge.

The Department of Transportation, which granted the lease, is part of the executive branch of Hawaii state government. Although Hoover v. Ronwin declares that state…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.