What is restraint of trade?

Useful Rulings on Restraint of Trade

Recent Rulings on Restraint of Trade

VENCLOSE INC., ET AL. V. COVIDIEN LP, ET AL. (LEAD CASE) [CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. 18CV327382]

.; (8) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; 12 (9) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; and (10) Violation of 13 Cartwright Act. 14 On October 28, 2020, the court heard a demurrer by Defendants to the seventh through 15 tenth causes of action in the SAC.

  • Hearing

GARDEN GATE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CATHERINE WELLS

Rather, it provides a defense against artful pleading in which “the defendant's act of petitioning the government is made to appear as defamation, interference with business relations, restraint of trade and the like.” (citation omittedWilcox v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 821, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 446.) Obviously this purpose is not fulfilled by requiring evidentiary support for a motion when the pleadings themselves show that a plaintiff's claims arise from protected conduct.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A CHARTERED COUNTY AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; VS JUAN ORDORICA, ET AL.

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on August 28, 2020, alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of the Cartwright Act, Business and Professions Code § 16720 against all Defendants; (2) conflict of interest in violation of Government Code § 1090, et seq. against all Defendants; (3) Receiving Fee or Reward for Services Rendered as a County Employee in violation of Los Angeles County Code § 5.44.020 against Ordorica; (4) fraud and deceit against all Defendants; (5) conspiracy to commit fraud against all Defendants

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

VENCLOSE INC., ET AL. V. COVIDIEN LP, ET AL. (LEAD CASE) [CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. 18CV327382]

A plaintiff fails to state a claim under the 21 Cartwright Act when it only alleges economic harm to itself, not harm to the market, or to 22 competition generally. (See FashionPass, Inc. v. Rent the Runway, Inc. (June 2019) 2019 WL 23 3782332, at *3.) 24 Venclose’s allegations focus only on injury to itself, not injury to competition generally. 25 Therefore, Venclose has not alleged a Cartwright Act claim.

  • Hearing

FUEL INJECTION VS FARRELL

“A contract, combination, or conspiracy is an illegal restraint of trade if it constitutes a per se violation of the statute or has as its purpose or effect an unreasonable restraint of trade.” (Corwin v. Los Angeles Newspaper Service Bureau, Inc. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 302, 314-315.) Traditionally, the inquiry under the rule of reason “is limited to whether the challenged conduct promotes or suppresses competition. (In re Cipro Cases I & II (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 116, 146 (“Cipro”).)

  • Hearing

MIN HEE LEE, ET AL. VS GOLD REED, A DBA OF UNKNOWN FORM, ET AL.

.¿¿ “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.' [Citations.]” Quelimane Co. v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GUZIK TECHNICAL ENTERPRISES V. KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Accordingly, 27 Defendant’s demurrer to the ninth cause of action is OVERRULED. 1 (8) Eleventh Cause of Action: Violation of the Cartwright Act 2 The Cartwright Act, contained in Business and Professions Code section 16700, et seq., 3 codifies the common law prohibition against restraint of trade. (G.H.I.I. v. MTS, Inc. (1983) 147 4 Cal.App.3d 256, 264.)

  • Hearing

VENCLOSE INC., ET AL. V. COVIDIEN LP, ET AL. (LEAD CASE) [CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. 18CV327382]

.; (8) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; 12 (9) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; and (10) Violation of 13 Cartwright Act. 14 On January 26, 2018, the court stayed this case pending resolution of the Massachusetts 15 action. Judgment following trial has been entered in the Massachusetts action.

  • Hearing

BERTUZZI VS. RENOVATE AMERICA, INC.

City & County of S.F. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 913, 920-21 [public entities are outside the definition of “person” in Cartwright Act]; Janis v. Cal. State Lottery Comm. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 824, 831 [public entities are not “person” within the definition of the Unfair Competition Act]; Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. v. Bluvshtein (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 308, 318 [rent control board, as government entity, falls outside definition of “person” set forth in Unfair Practices Act.].)

  • Hearing

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

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

VENCLOSE INC., ET AL. V. COVIDIEN LP, ET AL. (LEAD CASE) [CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. 18CV327382]

.; (8) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; 12 (9) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; and (10) Violation of 13 Cartwright Act. 14 Defendants now demur to each cause of action in this case. 15 II.

  • Hearing

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

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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

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

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

  • 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

  • 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

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

  • 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

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

1 2 3 4 5     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.