What is restraint of trade?

Useful Rulings on Restraint of Trade

Recent Rulings on Restraint of Trade

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

A cause of action for a conspiracy in restraint of trade ‘”must allege (1) the formation and operation of the conspiracy, (2) the wrongful act or acts done pursuant thereto, and (3) the damage resulting from such act or acts.”’” (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 47.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

None of plaintiffs’ allegations come close to establishing “[a] conspiracy, a combination in restraint of trade, or an illegal monopoly.” Section 54040 is merely an organizational provision that states that California’s general corporation laws apply to co-ops. Plaintiffs offer no explanation as to how Sun-Maid purportedly acted “unlawfully as a cooperative. . . .”

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

KC EXCLUSIVE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS SEUNG YONG PAEK, ET AL.

Demurrer Analysis: Fourth COA: Civil Conspiracy “A cause of action for a conspiracy in restraint of trade ‘must allege (1) the formation and operation of the conspiracy, (2) the wrongful act or acts done pursuant thereto, and (3) the damage resulting from such act or acts. [Citations.]’ General allegations of agreement have been held sufficient [citation], and the conspiracy averment has even been held unnecessary, providing the unlawful acts or civil wrongs are otherwise sufficiently alleged.'

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KEVIN SAURER ET AL VS GADFLY COMMUNICATIONS INC ET AL

The courts do not strain to find a restraint of trade in contracts not intended to have that effect. (Keating v. Preston (1940) 42 Cal.App.2d 110, 122.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

A cause of action for a conspiracy in restraint of trade ‘”must allege (1) the formation and operation of the conspiracy, (2) the wrongful act or acts done pursuant thereto, and (3) the damage resulting from such act or acts.”’” (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 47.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

DEWAYNE CASSEL V. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL.

Based on these allegations, plaintiff asserts claims under PAGA for (1) fraud in violation of Labor Code section 970, (2) retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5(b), (3) unlawful confidentiality agreement in restraint of trade in violation of Labor Code section 432.5, (4) unlawful confidentiality agreement with no Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act notice in violation of Labor Code section 432.5, (5) illegal harassment release in violation of Labor Code section 432.5, (6) prohibition on engaging

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2019

REINER VS. COX COMMUNICATIONS CALIFORNIA LLC

Defendant has arguably met this standard as to the first cause of action for violation of the Cartwright Act and the sixth cause of action for Elder Abuse, but not with respect to the second, fourth and fifth causes of action. (The third and seventh causes of action have since been dismissed.) Although the FAC is not a model of clarity, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts that he contracted with Defendant for an “advertised rate,” but was then charged an “additional $19 per month.” (FAC at ¶ 8.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2019

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

Violation of Cartwright Act, Business & Professions Code Section 16700, et seq. Breach of Written Contract Aiding and Abetting On January 4, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed CVMC without prejudice. A Final Status Conference is set for December 2, 2019. Trial is set for December 10, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2019

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

Violation of Cartwright Act, Business & Professions Code Section 16700, et seq. Breach of Written Contract Aiding and Abetting On January 4, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed CVMC without prejudice. A Final Status Conference is set for December 2, 2019. Trial is set for December 10, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

RICHMOND COMPASSIONATE VS. RICHMOND PATIENT’S GROUP

As a general matter, federal cases analyzing the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act apply to analysis of the Cartwright Act. Corwin v. Los Angeles Newspaper Service Bureau, Inc. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 842, 852. Reviewed more carefully, however, Corwin states that federal court decisions interpreting particular language found both in the Sherman Act or Clayton Act, and in the Cartwright Act, apply to the Cartwright Act. See Id.

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2019

FONSECA VS HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [E-FILE]

Pursuant to the California Business & Professions Code section 16750(a), any person who is injured by a violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16700 et seq.) may sue. The relevant case law goes on to make clear that plaintiffs suing under the Cartwright Act must have suffered direct injury as a result of the anticompetitive conduct in order to have standing to sue. See Cellular Plus, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FONSECA VS HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [E-FILE]

Pursuant to the California Business & Professions Code section 16750(a), any person who is injured by a violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16700 et seq.) may sue. The relevant case law goes on to make clear that plaintiffs suing under the Cartwright Act must have suffered direct injury as a result of the anticompetitive conduct in order to have standing to sue. See Cellular Plus, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FONSECA VS HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [E-FILE]

Pursuant to the California Business & Professions Code section 16750(a), any person who is injured by a violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16700 et seq.) may sue. The relevant case law goes on to make clear that plaintiffs suing under the Cartwright Act must have suffered direct injury as a result of the anticompetitive conduct in order to have standing to sue. See Cellular Plus, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FONSECA VS HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [E-FILE]

Pursuant to the California Business & Professions Code section 16750(a), any person who is injured by a violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16700 et seq.) may sue. The relevant case law goes on to make clear that plaintiffs suing under the Cartwright Act must have suffered direct injury as a result of the anticompetitive conduct in order to have standing to sue. See Cellular Plus, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FONSECA VS HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [E-FILE]

Pursuant to the California Business & Professions Code section 16750(a), any person who is injured by a violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16700 et seq.) may sue. The relevant case law goes on to make clear that plaintiffs suing under the Cartwright Act must have suffered direct injury as a result of the anticompetitive conduct in order to have standing to sue. See Cellular Plus, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FONSECA VS HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [E-FILE]

Pursuant to the California Business & Professions Code section 16750(a), any person who is injured by a violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16700 et seq.) may sue. The relevant case law goes on to make clear that plaintiffs suing under the Cartwright Act must have suffered direct injury as a result of the anticompetitive conduct in order to have standing to sue. See Cellular Plus, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JANE DOE V. MARGARET CAFARELLI, ET AL.

., supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 47-48 [conspiracy in restraint of trade].) Here, there is an express allegation of agreement and intent that the fraud be committed. As the Court determined in ruling on the demurrer of Cafarelli, the allegations as against her are sufficiently pleaded. Consequently, the allegation of conspiracy to commit fraud is sufficient. Demurring defendants also argue that this cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2019

CMC DIRT WORKS INC VS SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

In their Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), (ROA # 78) Plaintiffs allege claims for 1) Violation of Unfair Practices Act (Business and Professions Code 17043, 17045, 17046, 17047 and 17048), 2) Violation of Cartwright Act (Business and Professions Code 16720), 3) BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING, 4) NEGLIGENCE, 5) CONSPIRACY TO INTENTIONALLY INTERFERE WITH CMC'S CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS, 6) CONSPIRACY TO INTENTIONALLY INTERFERE WITH CMC'S PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS and 7) NEGLIGENCE against

  • Hearing

    Jul 03, 2019

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DAVID ELIAS VS PACIFIC COAST UNIVERSITY OF LAW, ET AL.

“Restraint on Trade” Grading of Students is not a restraint of trade. In any event, there are no facts that any of these Defendants took any action, individually, which would otherwise constitute a restraint of trade. There are no facts under which any of these Defendants are vicariously liable for the acts of others. 11. Breach of Contract There is no contract between any of these Defendants and Plaintiff. 12.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

SEYED JAMALI VS LEED ELECTRIC, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

(discussing cases holding that claims under the Cartwright Act are arbitrable, even though the Cartwright Act provides that the claims will be decided in civil actions “in any court having jurisdiction.”) In sum, these authorities make clear that just because a statute says that the “superior court” must decide an issue does not mean that the claim is not arbitrable.

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2019

JANE DOE V. MARGARET CAFARELLI, ET AL.

., supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 47-48 [conspiracy in restraint of trade].) Here, there is an express allegation of agreement and intent that the fraud be committed. The allegation of conspiracy to commit fraud is sufficient. The demurrer to the thirteenth cause of action will be overruled. (D) Defamation Doe’s twenty-first cause of action is for defamation. The action is based upon allegations that Hedgpeth stated to Doe, “You are crazy” and “This is crazy.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2019

DAVID ELIAS VS PACIFIC COAST UNIVERSITY OF LAW, ET AL.

“Restraint on Trade” Grading of Students is not a restraint of trade. 11. Breach of Contract There is no contract between Olson and Plaintiff. 13. 42 USC 1983 The allegations do not establish Olson violated Plaintiff’s civil rights under color of law. 14. Due Process Violation Under the authorities quoted above, the facts do not amount to a due process violation by Olson. 15. Unfair Business Practices Only the law school would be subject to this claim. 16.

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

CMC DIRT WORKS INC VS SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

Recovery is provided under the Cartwright Act where the activities of a combination result in a restraint of trade. Id. The Complaint must allege the following: (a) the formation and operation of the conspiracy; (b) illegal acts done pursuant thereto; (c) a purpose to restrain trade; and (d) damage caused by such acts. Id. A high degree of particularity in the pleading of Cartwright Act violations is required. Id.

  • Hearing

    May 14, 2019

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2 3 4     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.