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.
