on the Pleadings (Ct. Rec. 31) is GRANTED. 2. YVMH’s Motion to Supplement (Ct. Rec. 50) is DENIED. The related Motion to Expedite (Ct. Rec. 49) is GRANTED. 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in Defendants’ favor on all claims. 4. This file shall be closed. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and distribute copies to counsel. 1 . Congress passed the NHPRDA out of concern that the market had failed to accomplish this on its own. Id. 2 . Notably, the Supreme Court in Fisher did not rely on any of those factors when it con-eluded that rent control is a unilateral restraint. 475 U.S. at 266-70, 106 S.Ct. 1045. 3 . See Gen. Hosps. of Humana, Inc. v. Baptist Med. Sys., Inc., No. LR-C-84-455, 1986 WL 935 (E.D.Ark. Feb. 12, 1986) (<HOLDING>); Indent Neuro-Imaging Lab. v. Blue Cross &
holding that a state of california agriculture program to market certain crops was immune from antitrust challenge under state immunity doctrine holding that private health care providers proceeding under con licenses are immune from antitrust liability under the state action doctrine holding that a railroad owned and operated by the federal government was immune from antitrust action under the governmental immunity doctrine which protects the federal government its agencies and instrumentalities from the reaches of antitrust law holding that an individual is immune from antitrust liability for exercising first amendment right to petition the government holding that a railroad operated and owned by the federal government was immune from antitrust liability