A group of loggers and landowners, organized under the Malheur Forest Fairness Coalition, is pushing the Ninth Circuit to revive their antitrust lawsuit against Iron Triangle LLC. The suit accuses the logging and lumber company of monopolizing logging and related services in eastern Oregon’s Malheur National Forest region. The coalition filed their opening brief Thursday, seeking to reverse a lower court ruling that dismissed the case, arguing that Iron Triangle had monopoly power and used anticompetitive tactics to dominate the region.

The dispute centers around a stewardship contract awarded to Iron Triangle by the U.S. Forest Service, which the company promised to use to improve the Malheur National Forest while stimulating the regional economy. The coalition claims that Iron Triangle exploited this contract to monopolize four distinct markets related to logging services, including by hoarding lumber and misrepresenting its capacity to the Forest Service. Additionally, the coalition accuses Iron Triangle of making a deal with Malheur Lumber, which agreed to purchase logging services solely from Iron Triangle, effectively stifling competition.

U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernandez had ruled that the loggers and landowners failed to demonstrate that Iron Triangle held monopoly power in the region’s markets. In his dismissal, Judge Hernandez dismissed claims related to markets for stewardship services and harvest rights for standing timber, concluding that private landowners, alongside the U.S. Forest Service, participated in these markets. The plaintiffs counter that the judge’s ruling ignored the role of private landowners and the potential for competition, pointing out that Iron Triangle’s control over timber harvest rights and its deal with Malheur Lumber restricted rivals' ability to compete effectively.

The brief emphasizes that Iron Triangle’s control of a vast majority of timber in the area gave the company the power to dictate prices and services, a characteristic of monopoly power. The plaintiffs argue that this monopolistic power is further demonstrated through Iron Triangle’s anticompetitive tactics, including the exclusive deal with Malheur Lumber and its suppression of competition in private logging contracts.

The coalition's attorney, Michael E. Haglund, expressed confidence that the Ninth Circuit would revive the case, pointing to legal errors made in the district court’s dismissal. He also suggested that the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division might support the plaintiffs' case.

The case, Malheur Forest Fairness Coalition et al. v. Iron Triangle LLC et al., is currently being heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.