Antitrust Laws

Useful Rulings on Antitrust Laws

Recent Rulings on Antitrust Laws

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

Issue No. 34: Plaintiff’s Cartwright Act claim fails because Plaintiff cannot meet its burden to show a substantially adverse effect on competition in the relevant market. (6th cause of action). Issue No. 35: Plaintiff’s Cartwright Act claim fails because no evidence exists of conspiratorial conduct rather than unilateral conduct. (6th cause of action).

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

NATALIE GAYEVA VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC, ET AL.

They further argue that Gayeva also does not allege any conduct by the Moving Defendants that would constitute a violation of antitrust law and/or policy. (Motion at p. 5.) The Complaint alleges that Select engaged in unfair business practices by “engag[ing] in a pattern and practice of misrepresenting to the Plaintiff during the life of the mortgage loan” including “[stringing] Plaintiff along while promising to modify or agree to a short sale.” (Compl. ¶ 27.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

OXFORD ROAD INC VS AD RESULTS MEDIA LLC

This includes Oxford's failure to adequately identify ARM's alleged conduct that violated any antitrust statutes or in any other way harms competition. The demurrer to the third cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets is sustained, without leave to amend. Under the CUTSA, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the plaintiff owned a trade secret; (2) the defendant acquired, disclosed, or used the trade secret through improper means; and (3) the defendant's actions damages the plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

ROSEMARY WOODS VS RAZ INVESTMENTS,INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

However, Chicago Title involved antitrust litigation, which is not at issue in the instant action, and moreover, the cited authority makes clear that while the conspiracy itself may be generally alleged, Plaintiff must still sufficiently allege the underlying acts or civil wrongs by Raz Defendants. Namely, Plaintiff must still allege facts demonstrating that the conduct of the Raz Defendants satisfies the elements of a civil conspiracy; conclusory allegations are insufficient.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

OXFORD ROAD INC VS AD RESULTS MEDIA LLC

This includes Oxford's failure to adequately identify ARM's alleged conduct that violated any antitrust statutes or in any other way harms competition. The demurrer to the third cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets is sustained, without leave to amend. Under the CUTSA, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the plaintiff owned a trade secret; (2) the defendant acquired, disclosed, or used the trade secret through improper means; and (3) the defendant's actions damages the plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

OXFORD ROAD INC VS AD RESULTS MEDIA LLC

This includes Oxford's failure to adequately identify ARM's alleged conduct that violated any antitrust statutes or in any other way harms competition. The demurrer to the third cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets is sustained, without leave to amend. Under the CUTSA, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the plaintiff owned a trade secret; (2) the defendant acquired, disclosed, or used the trade secret through improper means; and (3) the defendant's actions damages the plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

TY NGUYEN, ET AL. VS AKIYAMA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (USA), A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 127. Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy this burden. The only evidence submitted by Defendant did not directly address moving party but instead made vague references to an entity named “AIP.” Therefore, AIP/Goss Holdco, LLC’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is granted. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

MELKONIAN ENTERPRISES, INC. V. SUN-MAID GROWERS OF CALIFORNIA

They do not explain which conduct threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or how it does so—they merely allege that Sun-Maid’s conduct was unfair. This is insufficient. (See Rakestraw v. Cal. Physicians’ Serv., supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 42 [a plaintiff must assert the sufficient factual allegations, not mere labels or conclusion of law].) 3.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

RODNEY LEWIS V. MOKI DOORSTEP CORP., INC., ET AL.

In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II, 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110 (2005) [citations omitted]. If the proffered evidence is not too imprecise and speculative, it may support a rational inference based on California activities. Id. at 112-114. “‘[The] constitutional touchstone’ of the determination whether an exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process ‘remains whether the defendant purposefully established minimum contacts in the forum State.’

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

TONTI V. CAPO BY THE SEA, INC.

“When a plaintiff who claims to have suffered injury from a direct competitor's “unfair” act or practice invokes section 17200, the word “unfair” in that section means conduct that threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.” Id., at 187.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

VLADIMIR GUSINSKY REVOCABLE TRUST V. JOHN R. PEELER, ET AL.

Wash. 2014) 72 F.Supp.3d 1210, 1219 [the Ninth Circuit generally disfavors the core operations inference, but makes an exception “where the nature of the relevant fact is of such prominence that it would be absurd to suggest that management was without knowledge on this matter”; applying the inference where Microsoft was in clear and repeated violation of antitrust settlement with the European Union].) Finally, the fact that the operative complaint in Wolther v. Maheshwari (Super. Ct.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

MODA LLC ET AL VS HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II, 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110 (2005) [citations omitted]. If the proffered evidence is not too imprecise and speculative, it may support a rational inference based on California activities. Id. at 112-114. a. General Jurisdiction: “‘[The] constitutional touchstone’ of the determination whether an exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process ‘remains whether the defendant purposefully established minimum contacts in the forum State.’

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

TOTAL AIRPORT SERVICES WAGE AND HOUR CASES

CRC 3.400(c) states that an action is provisionally a complex case if it involves one or more of the following types of claims: (1) Antitrust or trade regulation claims; (2) Construction defect claims involving many parties or structures; (3) Securities claims or investment losses involving many parties; (4) Environmental or toxic tort claims involving many parties; (5) Claims involving mass torts; (6) Claims involving class actions; or (7) Insurance coverage claims arising out of any of the claims listed

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2020

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

Issue No. 34: Plaintiff’s Cartwright Act claim fails because Plaintiff cannot meet its burden to show a substantially adverse effect on competition in the relevant market. (6th cause of action). Issue No. 35: Plaintiff’s Cartwright Act claim fails because no evidence exists of conspiratorial conduct rather than unilateral conduct. (6th cause of action).

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DANIEL W. HOPP VS 33428 CALVEST MALIBU, LLC, ET AL.,

Soto (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1362 (citing In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110.)) If the plaintiff meets this burden, “it becomes the defendant's burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CALIFORNIA FIR CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, INC., A NONPROFIT CORPORATION VS. CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, A DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Properly created exclusive operating areas immunize local EMS agencies from liability under federal antitrust laws. (County of San Bernardino, supra, 15 Cal.4th at 917-18.) In other words, local EMS agencies may effectively grant a monopoly to certain providers through the creation of exclusive operating areas. Section 1797.224 provides that, in order to create an exclusive operating area, the local EMS agency must generally utilize “a competitive process . . . to select the provider or providers . . . .

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

CALIFORNIA FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, INC., A NONPROFIT CORPORATION VS. CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, A DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Properly created exclusive operating areas immunize local EMS agencies from liability under federal antitrust laws. (County of San Bernardino, supra, 15 Cal.4th at 917-18.) In other words, local EMS agencies may effectively grant a monopoly to certain providers through the creation of exclusive operating areas. Section 1797.224 provides that, in order to create an exclusive operating area, the local EMS agency must generally utilize “a competitive process . . . to select the provider or providers . . . .

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

SLACK VS. MARX

(In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110-11.) Here, Plaintiff does not contend that defendants are subject to general jurisdiction. “If a nonresident defendant does not have sufficient contacts in California to establish general jurisdiction, it may still be subject to the specific jurisdiction of our courts if there is a sufficient nexus among the defendant, the state and the litigation.” (Id. at 109.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

ALLADAWI VS. PLAZA-IRVINE OWNERS ASSOCIATION

In cases involving a competitor, “a business practice is ‘unfair’ only if it ‘threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at 254.) “Absent a legal provision to the contrary, a private party generally may choose to do or not do business with whomever it pleases.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

WUN-LING CHANG, M.D., INC. VS BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

However, the Durell court adopted the following definition of “unfair” in the context of UCL, non-competitor actions: “‘[t]o show a business practice is unfair, the plaintiff must show the conduct ‘threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.’” Durell, 183 Cal.App.4th at 1366 (citing Byars v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DESTILLERIA EL PANDILLO S A DE C V VS CORAZON AZUL SPIRITS I

We thus adopt the following test: When a plaintiff who claims to have suffered injury from a direct competitor's ‘unfair’ act or practice invokes section 17200, the word ‘unfair’ in that section means conduct that threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.” (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ADVANCED ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC V. LUMASENSE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

And, in this context, “[i]njury to a competitor is not equivalent to injury to competition; only the latter is the proper focus of antitrust laws.” (Cel- Tech Communications, Inc., supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 186.) Here, the pleading appears, superficially, to focus on harm to Plaintiff as a competitor rather than harm to competition as defined above. That said, Lumasense offers a bare conclusion that the facts alleged do not plead conduct qualifying as unfair.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

MICHAEL FALLS VS EVERGREEN RZ INC ET AL

The Falls argue that the SACC does not allege that the Falls violated any antitrust law or policy, and they argue that Evergreen cannot produce evidence that the Falls “took actions in violation of antitrust law, or that violated the policy or spirit of antitrust laws.” (Motion at pp. 9-10.) Falls also argue that Evergreen cannot produce evidence of an unlawful act committed by the Falls. (Motion at p. 10.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

AHN VS CHICAGO TITLE A DIVISION OF FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL

Apparently abandoning an argument as to a violation of public policy violation related to renewable energy, Plaintiff asserts that his claim for violations of the Cartwright Act serves as the basis for the wrongful termination claim. Thus, if Plaintiff has not properly alleged a Cartwright Act violation, his wrongful termination claim fails. "The California Supreme Court demands a high degree of particularity in the pleading of Cartwright Act violations." (Motors, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

AHN VS CHICAGO TITLE A DIVISION OF FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL

Apparently abandoning an argument as to a violation of public policy violation related to renewable energy, Plaintiff asserts that his claim for violations of the Cartwright Act serves as the basis for the wrongful termination claim. Thus, if Plaintiff has not properly alleged a Cartwright Act violation, his wrongful termination claim fails. "The California Supreme Court demands a high degree of particularity in the pleading of Cartwright Act violations." (Motors, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.