Antitrust

Reversing dismissal of this antitrust suit, the decision holds that plaintiff's complaint adequately alleged a violation of Sherman Act section 1 by reason of NAR's Clear Cooperation Policy which required realtors who listed properties on a rival multiple listing service, such as plaintiff's, to also list those properties on an NAR listing service.  The complaint alleged that the claimed violation… Read More

Plaintiff's complaint alleged a viable Sherman Act section 1 antitrust conspiracy among dentist members of the Dental Board of California to harass and intimidate plaintiff which sought to engage in a disruptive new direct to consumer model of marketing clear dental aligners to members of the public.  The members of the dental board were not immune from antitrust liability merely… Read More

Relying heavily on Anglo Irish Bank Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 969, this decision holds that a South Korean parent corporation is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California based on activities its California subsidiary took in California in what the complaint charged was an antitrust conspiracy to fix spot market prices of fuel in California.  For personal… Read More

Plaintiffs alleging parallel conduct among competitors as a Sherman Act section 1 conspiracy must allege additional facts (plus factors) that place that parallel conduct in a context suggesting a preceding agreement.  Here, only one of the eight plus factors plaintiffs alleged weighed slightly in favor of conspiracy, which was insufficient to cross the threshold from possible to plausible.  The three… Read More

Substantial evidence supported the jury verdict finding that defendant had violated Sherman Act section 1 by agreeing with a competitor to fix the terms of credit they would make available to plaintiff.  Terms of credit are part of the price; hence, horizontal agreement to fix credit terms are illegal per se.  Substantial evidence also support the jury verdict finding defendant… Read More

Oakland lacked standing to bring a price-fixing antitrust claim against Oakland Raiders and other NFL teams arising out of the Raiders' move to Las Vegas.  A finding of antitrust standing requires a balancing of the nature of the plaintiff’s alleged injury, the directness of the injury, the speculative measure of the harm, the risk of duplicative recovery, and the complexity… Read More

The NCAA is not entitled to any special immunity from application of the Sherman Act.  The district court properly evaluated the NCAA's rules limiting athletes' compensation under the rule of reason analysis.  At either end of the spectrum of restraints, abbreviated analysis may suffice to show the challenged restraint either is or is not a violation of the Sherman Act. … Read More

In Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, the Supreme Court held that in the employment context, Bus. & Prof. Code 16600 is to be strictly enforced, prohibiting enforcement of any noncompetition clause except in circumstances that are exempted by B & P Code 16601, 16602 or 16602.5.  However, this case holds that outside the employment context, and… Read More

Notwithstanding  United States v. Paramount Pictures (1948) 334 U.S. 131, which applied a per se test to circuit-dealing contracts in movie theaters, this decision holds that the rule of reason test applies to a non-monopoly claim of circuit-dealing contracts under the Cartwright Act.  Paramount Pictures dealt with a unique market structure which has since vanished from the motion picture industry. … Read More

Reversing the district court's judgment and permanent injunction, this decision finds that Qualcomm's patent licensing practices do not violate the Sherman Act.  The district court erred in finding anticompetitive harm from the effect Qualcomm's licensing practices had on cell phone manufacturersp--a market in which Qualcomm did not compete--rather than on rival chip manufacturers with which Qualcomm did compete.  Qualcomm's practice… Read More