Lawyers for Conquest Student Housing filed a response in U.S. District Court on Wednesday after USC and Urban Partners sued the company in September. Conquest argues that the lawsuit infringed upon its First Amendment rights and failed to prove the company has a monopoly on student housing in the USC area.
USC's original lawsuit alleged that Conquest had used the courts and other public media to monopolize the housing market surrounding USC, an accusation that Conquest denies.
Much of Conquest's response focused on broadly defining the "relevant market" for area housing by proving that USC students have housing options other than Conquest. By contrast, USC had tried to define the relevant market narrowly, but when considering USC's own housing options and Conquest competitors, "it is clear that Conquest does not have anything remotely approaching monopoly power in the broader market for housing near USC," the response states.
"There were a lot of allegations; it was pretty astounding," said Kent Raygor, an attorney representing Conquest.
Conquest also asserts USC's original lawsuit violated California anti-SLAPP laws, which protect the First Amendment right of organizations to participate in government process and the public arena.
USC had argued that by using the courts and the Los Angeles City Council to delay housing projects around the university, Conquest was deliberately disrupting university and Urban Partners construction projects that would provide more student housing.
Conquest's response said USC and Urban partners sued Conquest in an attempt to punish the company for "merely seeking information" about these projects.
"There is nothing wrong with using the courts and administrative procedures to publicly object to development projects," the response said. "In fact, the First Amendment and [California State law] specifically protect such actions."
But Olu Orange, an adjunct professor of political science and a practicing attorney, said Conquest cannot use anti-SLAPP laws as a defense because they do not necessarily apply to private businesses.
"If you are a commercial enterprise and the act of public participation engaged in is for the purpose of furthering your business, you don't have the benefit of anti-SLAPP," Orange said. "I believe Conquest's First Amendment argument is very weak."
USC is also suing for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a law created to target members of criminal organizations - a claim Conquest also refuted.
Conquest's response came in the form of a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike, both of which attack the original lawsuit's legal standing but not its factual assertions. The motions request that a federal judge throw out the lawsuit at a hearing in December.
The result of the lawsuit will seriously affect USC's ability to develop the land in its vicinity, Orange said.
"The outcome of this litigation has, I think, serious implications for the university and the university's ability to grow in terms of it's use of land and property around it," he said.
