Restraint of Trade in California

What is Restraint of Trade?

“The Cartwright Act, like the Sherman Antitrust Act, was enacted to promote free market competition and to prevent conspiracies or agreements in restraint or monopolization of trade.” (Exxon Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1672, 1680-1681.) Antitrust laws were enacted for the protection of competition, not competitors. (Marsh v. Anesthesia Services Medical Group, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal. App. 4th 480, 495.) They do not require the Court to protect small businesses from the loss of profits due to continued competition, but only against the loss of profits from practices forbidden by the antitrust laws. (Id.) Injury to a competitor is not equivalent to injury to competition; only the latter is the proper focus of antitrust laws. (Id.)

The Complaint must allege facts from which injury to market-wide competition can be inferred. (Id.) An antitrust injury must be proved; that is, the type of injury the antitrust laws were intended to prevent, and which flows from the invidious conduct which renders Defendant's acts unlawful. (Id.)

Federal antitrust cases interpreting the Sherman Act are helpful in interpreting the Cartwright Act (Corwin v. Los Angeles Newspaper Service Bureau, Inc. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 842, 852), but, because of the history of the Cartwright Act, California law may be different from federal antitrust law (Cal. ex rel. Van De Kamp v. Texaco (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1147, 1168).

The focus of the Cartwright Act is on protecting the process of competition not the result of competition; the same conduct that is legal when accomplished by those acting independently may be illegal when accomplished by the same parties acting in concert. (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 49.)

The Cartwright Act provides that “a combination of capital, skill or acts by two or more persons” for the purpose of creating or carrying out “restrictions in trade or commerce” is “unlawful, against public policy and void.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 16720, subd. (a), 16726.) Like its federal counterpart, § 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1), the Cartwright Act is expressed in absolute terms, but has been interpreted to make unlawful only unreasonable restrictions in trade or commerce. (Macmanus v. A. E. Realty Partners (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 275, 285; see also Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16725.)

To state a Cartwright Act claim, plaintiff must allege “[t]he formation and operation of the conspiracy; the illegal acts done pursuant thereto; a purpose to restrain trade; and the damage caused by such acts.” (G.H.I.I. v. MTS, Inc. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 256, 265.) Although the prohibitions of the Cartwright Act are framed in superficially absolute language, deciding antitrust illegality is not as simple as identifying whether a challenged agreement involves a restraint of trade. (In re Cipro Cases I & II (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 116, 145, 146.) Instead, the Act retains the common law understanding that only unreasonable restraints of trade are prohibited. (Id. at 136.) Under the traditional rule of reason, inquiry is limited to whether the challenged conduct promotes or suppresses competition. (Id. at 146.) To determine whether an agreement harms competition more than it helps, the Court may consider the facts peculiar to the business in which the restraint is applied, the nature of the restraint and its effects, and the history of the restraint and the reasons for its adoption. (Id.) In a typical case, this may entail expert testimony on such matters as the definition of the relevant market and the extent of Defendant's market power. (Id.)

Pleading a Cartwright Act claim requires a high degree of particularity. (G.H.I.I. v. MTS, Inc. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 256, 265; Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Great Western Financial Corp. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 305, 326-328.) “‘[C]ontracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of... trade or commerce cannot be alleged generally in the words of the statute but... facts must be set forth which indicate the existence of such contracts, combinations or conspiracies.’ Thus, general allegations of a conspiracy unaccompanied by a statement of facts constituting the conspiracy and explaining its objectives and impact in restraint of trade will not suffice.” (G.H.I.I, supra, 147 Cal.App.3d at 265-266.)

Sherman Act

The similar language of the two acts reflects their common objective to protect and promote competition. (State of California ex rel. Van de Kamp v. Texaco, Inc. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1147, 1153; Business Electronics v. Sharp Electronics (1988) 485 U.S. 717, 726 [108 S.Ct. 1515, 1520-1521].) Since the Cartwright Act and the federal Sherman Act share similar language and objectives, California courts often look to federal precedents under the Sherman Act for guidance. (Morrison v. Viacom, Inc. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 534, 541, fn. 2.)

Although the Sherman Act, by its terms, prohibits every agreement “in restraint of trade,” this Court has long recognized that Congress intended to outlaw only unreasonable restraints. (Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Soc., 457 U.S. 332, 342-343, (1982).) Restraints of trade violate the Sherman Act if they are unreasonable per se or unreasonable under the “rule of reason.” (Fisher v. City of Berkeley, (1984) 37 Cal.3d 665.) Per se liability is reserved for only those agreements that are “so plainly anticompetitive that no elaborate study of the industry is needed to establish their illegality.” (Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, (“Texaco”) (2006) 547 U.S. 1, 5.) Under the rule of reason, the factfinder weighs all of the circumstances of a case in deciding whether a restrictive practice should be prohibited as imposing an unreasonable restraint on competition. (Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., (2007) 551 U.S. 877, 885-86.) Appropriate factors to take into account include specific information about the relevant business; the restraint’s history, nature, and effect; and whether the businesses involved have market power. (Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., (2007) 551 U.S. 877, 885-86.) In its design and function, the rule of reason distinguishes between restraints and anticompetitive effect that are harmful to the consumer and restraints stimulating competition that are in the consumer’s best interest. (Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., (2007) 551 U.S. 877, 885-86.)

“Contracts, combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade covered by § 1 of the Sherman Act are of two types, horizontal or vertical. Horizontal combinations are cartels or agreements among competitors which restrain competition among enterprises at the same level of distribution. They are ordinarily illegal per se. Vertical restraints are imposed by persons or firms further up the chain of distribution of a specific product (or in rare cases, further down the chain) than the enterprise restrained. Vertical non-price restraints are tested under the rule of reason; that is, the plaintiff must prove that the restraint had an anticompetitive effect in the relevant market in order to prevail.” (Exxon Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1672, 1680-1681; Marin County Bd. of Realtors, Inc. v. Palsson (1976) 16 Cal.3d 920, 930-931; Chavez v Whirlpool Corp (2001) 93 CA 4th 363, 369.)

Rulings for Restraint of Trade in California

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.

  • Name

    CMC DIRT WORKS INC VS SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00041928-CU-BT-CTL

  • Hearing

    May 14, 2019

Cross complaint falls short of a Cartwright Act claim or coming within the holding of Klor's, Inc v Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc 359 US 207 (1959). Discussion "The Cartwright Act prohibits every trust, defined as "a combination of capital, skill or acts by two or more persons" for specified anticompetitive purposes. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 16720, 16726.) The federal Sherman Act prohibits every "contract, combination ... or conspiracy, in restraint of trade." (15 U.S.C. § 1.)

  • Name

    COASTAL GROWERS SUPPLY VS. ANACAPA AGRO TECH SUPPLY

  • Case No.

    56-2012-00416700-CU-BT-VTA

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2012

Cross complaint falls short of a Cartwright Act claim. First amended cross complaint due by 8-22-12. Discussion "The Cartwright Act prohibits every trust, defined as "a combination of capital, skill or acts by two or more persons" for specified anticompetitive purposes. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 16720, 16726.) The federal Sherman Act prohibits every "contract, combination ... or conspiracy, in restraint of trade." (15 U.S.C. § 1.)

  • Name

    COASTAL GROWERS SUPPLY VS. ANACAPA AGRO TECH SUPPLY

  • Case No.

    56-2012-00416700-CU-BT-VTA

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2012

“The Cartwright Act [citation], like the Sherman Antitrust Act [citation], was enacted to promote free market competition and to prevent conspiracies or agreements in restraint or monopolization of trade. Restraint of trade may be horizontal or vertical. ‘Contracts, combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade covered by Section 1 of the Sherman Act are of two types, horizontal or vertical.

  • Name

    JEFF HENDRICKSON ET AL VS SB CERTIFIED FARMERS ETC ET AL

  • Case No.

    1414931

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2013

However, “[i]f the same conduct is alleged to be both an antitrust violation and an ‘unfair’ business act or practice for the same reason – because it unreasonably restrains competition and harms consumers – the determination that the conduct is not an unreasonable restraint of trade necessarily implies that the conduct is not ‘unfair’ toward consumers.” (Chavez v. Whirlpool Corp. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 363, 375.)

  • Name

    SHAW’S STRUCTURES V. FRIENDS OF THE FAIR

  • Case No.

    15CECG01373

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2016

Failure to Allege Sufficient Support for Allegations Made on Information and Belief Defendants argue Plaintiff’s Cartwright Act violation allegations fail because they are made on information and belief and Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient information supporting his belief that Defendants conspired with third parties to ban Plaintiff from training horses for racing. “The Cartwright Act prohibits combinations in unreasonable restraint of trade.” ( Marsh v.

  • Name

    JERRY HOLLENDORFER VS LOS ANGELES TURF CLUB INCORPORATED, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV34353

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DEMURRER 20 (1) Eighth Cause of Action (Violation of the Cartwright Act) 21 The Cartwright Act, contained in Business and Professions Code section 16700, et seq., 22 codifies the common law prohibition against restraint of trade. (G.H.I.I. v. MTS, Inc. (1983) 147 23 Cal.App.3d 256, 264.) Recovery is provided under the Cartwright Act where the activities of a 24 combination of capital, skill, or acts by two or more persons result in a restraint of trade. (Id. at 25 pp. 264-265.)

  • Name

    GUZIK TECHNICAL ENTERPRISES V. KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

  • Case No.

    19CV355879

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2021

“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”).)

  • Name

    FUEL INJECTION TECHNOLOGY INC VS FARRELL

  • Case No.

    RIC1904661

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

The operative First Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) accounting; (4) violation of the Cartwright Act (price fixing) (Bus. & Prof Code, § 16720, et seq.); (5) unreasonable restraint of trade (Bus. & Prof Code, § 16720, et seq.); (6) combination to monopolize in violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16720, et seq.); and (7) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.

  • Name

    THE WONDERFUL COMPANY LLC, ON BEHALF OF ITS AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV30239

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Recovery is provided under the Cartwright Act where the activities of a 20 combination of capital, skill, or acts by two or more persons result in a restraint of trade. (Id. at 21 pp. 264-265.) “In order to maintain a cause of action for such combination in restraint of trade, 22 the complaint must allege: The formation and operation of the conspiracy; the illegal acts done 23 pursuant thereto; a purpose to restrain trade; and the damage caused by such acts.”

  • Name

    GUZIK TECHNICAL ENTERPRISES V. KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

  • Case No.

    19CV355879

  • Hearing

    Feb 17, 2021

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.

  • Name

    RICHMOND COMPASSIONATE VS RICH

  • Case No.

    MSC16-01426

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2019

Concerted Activity in Restraint of Trade 12 Venclose alleges that Defendants engaged in two main types of activity in violation of the 13 Cartwright Act: (1) illegal tying arrangements and (2) improper inducements. 14 a.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    17CV315406

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2021

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENY - RENT PREMIUM AS MATTER OF LAW NOT IN VIOLATION OF B & P 16600 AND NOT OF "RESTRAINT OF TRADE." (302/REQPB)

  • Name

    NORTHERN VS. RICHEMONT NORTH AMERICA, INC.

  • Case No.

    CGC04430622

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2005

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

Defendant Cottage Health System now demurs to the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s Cartwright Act claims (first, second, and third causes of action) and plaintiff’s Unfair Business Practices claim (fourth cause of action) fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. In addition, defendant moves to strike the punitive damage allegations on the ground that punitive damages are not available for violations of the Cartwright Act.

  • Name

    ALAN MOELLEKEN MD ETC VS COTTAGE HEALTH SYSTEM ET AL

  • Case No.

    1339785

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2010

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.

  • Name

    AHN VS CHICAGO TITLE A DIVISION OF FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00014641-CU-WT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

The conspiracy allegations are necessary to the Cartwright Act causes of action and, without the Cartwright Act causes of action, there is no B&P Code § 17200 claim. Defendants claim that plaintiffs should not be given leave to amend.

  • Name

    ALAN MOELLEKEN MD ETC VS COTTAGE HEALTH SYSTEM ET AL

  • Case No.

    1339785

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2010

In addition, Plaintiff has cited no legal authority for the proposition that purchasing property constitutes a violation of the Cartwright Act. Defendants also point out that the purchasing of the two properties was done by one of the dispensary companies without involvement of the other companies. The Cartwright Act bans combinations, but single firm monopolization is not cognizable under the Cartwright Act. (Asahi Kasei Pharma Corp. v. CoTherix, Inc. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1, 11.)

  • Name

    RICHMOND COMPASSIONATE VS RICH

  • Case No.

    MSC16-01426

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2016

The fact that the jury found the Defendants did not violate Cartwright Act precludes Plaintiffs’ derivative UCL and declaratory relief claims. But even if the foregoing did not resolve these equitable issues this Court would not enter the finding and judgment requested by Plaintiffs on the facts of this case. This Court concludes that the Defendants did not conspire to exclude Dr.

  • Name

    ALAN MOELLEKEN MD ETC VS COTTAGE HEALTH SYSTEM ET AL

  • Case No.

    1339785

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2012

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.)

  • Name

    GUZIK TECHNICAL ENTERPRISES V. KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

  • Case No.

    19CV355879

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

The court held that the city, and the administrators of the city-owned and operated hospital, were not liable under the Cartwright Act because the Cartwright Act did not apply to government action. (Id. at p. 235.) In so ruling, the court noted that the city had statutory authority for prescribing rules for the administration of city- owned hospital (Gov. Code, § 37655) and that the Cartwright Act defines a “person” subject to the Cartwright Act as to exclude municipalities (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16702).

  • Name

    ALAN MOELLEKEN MD ETC VS COTTAGE HEALTH SYSTEM ET AL

  • Case No.

    1339785

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2011

In its proposed cross-complaint, Extrasensory seeks in part to allege the following crossclaims against SoCal (the plaintiff in this action): violations of the Cartwright Act, interference with prospective economic relations, and unfair business practices. (Bjorgum Decl., ¶ 2; Ex. A.)

  • Name

    SOCAL DIESEL INC VS EXTRASENSORY SOFTWARE INC

  • Case No.

    BC597857

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

A contract in restraint of trade is entirely void where it is indivisible and its central purpose is "tainted with illegality." In Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., (2000) 24 Cal. App. 4th 83, 124, determining whether a contract is severable, "courts are to look to the various purposes of the contract. If the central purpose of the contract is tainted with illegality, then the contract as a whole cannot be enforced.

  • Name

    ELECINIC CORP VS. KSC INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED

  • Case No.

    37-2014-00037349-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2017

Starbucks Corp. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1136, 1147.) 14 Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to the seventh cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH 15 10 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND. 16 (4) Tenth Cause of Action: Violation of Cartwright Act 17 The tenth cause of action is for violation of the Cartwright Act. 18 The elements of [a] Cartwright Act claim are (1) the formation and operation of the conspiracy, (2) the wrongful act or acts done pursuant thereto, and (3) the 19 damage resulting from such act or acts.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    17CV315406

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2021

The first amended complaint alleges: Defendant falsely represented to Plaintiff Wolfe that he needed to dismiss [his Cartwright Act] claims because they lacked merit and that both Wolfe and Steinberg would be subject to sanctions. Steinberg essentially coerced Wolfe into agreeing to dismiss those claims with prejudice and thereby forfeit obtaining relief for the anti-competitive actions of the Defendants in that matter.

  • Name

    DAN WOLFE VS S. KEVEN STEINBERG

  • Case No.

    20STCV32017

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    17CV315406

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

There, the plaintiff’s complaint alleged violations of the UIPA, the UCL, and the Cartwright Act (Business and Professions Code §16720 et seq.). The court of appeal held that because the conduct on which the plaintiff predicated the UCL cause of action violated both the UIPA and the antitrust provisions of the Cartwright Act, the trial court had properly overruled the demurrer to the complaint.

  • Name

    PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY CASES

  • Case No.

    CORD4612

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2012

The question addressed in Blank was “whether efforts to influence municipal action that are intended to and actually do produce anticompetitive effects are violative of the Cartwright Act when both private individuals and public officials participate.” (Id. at p. 316.) There could be no liability for such a conspiracy because the defendants’ conduct was protected under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, while government officials are not subject to the Cartwright Act.

  • Name

    RICHMOND COMPASSIONATE VS RICH

  • Case No.

    MSC16-01426

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

“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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    18LBCV00006

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2019

File (1970) 3 Cal.3d 389, 395 [under section 16600, a contract in restraint of trade is only “to that extent void”]; see also, Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 123-125 [courts have the ability to cure an unlawful contract through severance or restriction of the offending clause]; Mailand v. Burckle (1978) 20 Cal.3d 367, 384 [“partially illegal contracts may be upheld if the illegal portion is severable from the part which is legal”].)

  • Name

    BLUE MOUNTAIN ENTER., LLC V. OWEN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    FCS049313

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2018

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.

  • Name

    FONSECA VS HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [E-FILE]

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00045630-CU-WT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2019

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on 1/22/16 against defendants for: (1) conspiracy to violate Cartwright Act; (2) interference with prospective economic advantage; (3) unfair competition; (4) misappropriation of trade secrets; (5) breach of fiduciary duty; (6) RICO violation; and (7) declaratory relief. Plaintiff alleges that CDM improperly sought a secret commission from and threatened retaliation of plaintiff’s potential customers.

  • Name

    FUSION PHARMACEUTICALS LLC VS CDM CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC593339

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2016

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

  • Name

    CMC DIRT WORKS INC VS SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00041928-CU-BT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jul 03, 2019

A Cartwright Act violation requires "a combination of capital, skill or acts by two or more persons" that seeks to achieve an anticompetitive end. (§ 16720; see Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section, State Bar, Cal. State Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law (2009) § 2.02[D], p. 40 (hereafter, Cal. Antitrust & Unfair Competition).)

  • Name

    COASTAL GROWERS SUPPLY VS. ANACAPA AGRO TECH SUPPLY

  • Case No.

    56-2012-00416700-CU-BT-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2013

Cartwright Act; 7. Unfair Competition Law; 8. Conspiracy. Motion to be Relieved as Counsel Counsel states, in his declaration, valid reasons for withdrawal. Counsel states that there are irreconcilable differences between counsel and the client. The court finds that the attorney has filed and served upon the client a declaration.

  • Name

    GOOD WORLD TEA HOUSE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS BAO NGUYEN COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    19TRCV01128

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.'

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19STCV26818

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of duty to accord fair procedure; (2) declaratory relief; (3) intentional interference with prospective economic relations; (4) negligent interference with prospective economic relations; (5) intentional interference with contractual relations; (6) negligence; (7) defamation; and (8) Cartwright Act violation. Plaintiff is a Thoroughbred horse trainer.

  • Name

    JERRY HOLLENDORFER VS LOS ANGELES TURF CLUB INCORPORATED, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV34353

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The operative First Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) accounting; (4) violation of the Cartwright Act (price fixing) (Bus. & Prof Code, § 16720, et seq.); (5) unreasonable restraint of trade (Bus. & Prof Code, § 16720, et seq.); (6) combination to monopolize in violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16720, et seq.); and (7) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.

  • Name

    THE WONDERFUL COMPANY LLC, ON BEHALF OF ITS AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV30239

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

While the Wolfe Parties acknowledge Law Firm asserted a state law equivalent claim under the Cartwright Act, they contend Law Firm did not have the necessary experience to prosecute the Wolfe Parties Cartwright Act claim. Law Firm withdrew the Cartwright Act claim under a threat of sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 despite the per se anti-competitive nature of relevant contractual provisions between the Wolfe Parties and the City of Hawthorne.

  • Name

    DAN WOLFE VS S. KEVEN STEINBERG

  • Case No.

    20STCV32017

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Sixth cause of action for Cartwright Act: “California requires a ‘high degree of particularity’ in the pleading of Cartwright Act violations…The unlawful combination or conspiracy must be alleged with specificity. Freeman v. San Diego Ass'n of Realtors (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 171, 196 (citations omitted). “[G]eneral allegations of a conspiracy unaccompanied by factual allegations of overt acts in furtherance of conspiracy are insufficient to state a group boycott antitrust claim.” Id.

  • Name

    ENG VS. MISSION HOSPITAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00856981-CU-WM-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jan 01, 2017

Violation of Cartwright Act, Business & Professions Code Section 16700, et seq. Breach of Written Contract Aiding and Abetting On 9/19/18, plaintiff filed a “Notice of Errata Re: First Amended Complaint.” A Case Management Conference is set for 12/3/18. (1) DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT: Defendants Citrus Valley Health Partners, Inc.

  • Name

    CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

  • Case No.

    KC070381

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2018

Issue 1: Plaintiff's 1st cause of action for breach of contract fails because the patent and confidentiality agreement is an unlawful restraint of trade. Ruling: Deny. Defendants have not met their burden on this motion under CCP 437c(p)(2). The burden did not shift to Plaintiffs to establish a triable issue of material fact. Issue 2: Plaintiff's 1st cause of action for breach of contract fails because the patent and confidentiality agreement is unconscionable. Ruling: Deny.

  • Name

    AEROVIRONMENT INC VS. GABRIEL TORRES

  • Case No.

    56-2015-00465460-CU-BC-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2016

“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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    18LBCV00006

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2019

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.)

  • Name

    CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

  • Case No.

    KC070381

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Judge

    Gloria White-Brown

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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.)

  • Name

    CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

  • Case No.

    KC070381

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Judge

    Gloria White-Brown

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

(Id. at ¶ 157.) 10 The 4AC sets forth the following causes of action: (1) Declaratory Judgment; 11 (2) Declaratory Judgment; (3) Declaratory Judgment; (4) Declaratory Judgment; (5) Declaratory 12 Judgment; (6) Declaratory Judgment; (7) Violations of the Cartwright Act; (8) Violations of the 13 Unfair Competition Law and the Unfair Business Practices Act; (9) Intentional Interference with 14 Prospective Economic Advantage; and (10) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations. 15 On January 26, 2018, the

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    17CV315406

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2021

The covenant by the landlord is not an unreasonable restraint of trade, and an agreement among lessees in a shopping center that allocates the exclusive right to sell certain products is not an invalid restraint of trade (Miller & Starr, California Real Estate §34:113 (4th Ed. 2015.) ¶1.9 is nothing more than to identify what uses Defendant as tenant can have, and its exclusive right to use it in that manner.

  • Name

    LOS PORTALES ASSOCIATES LP VS FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC

  • Case No.

    CVRI2102808

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of duty to accord fair procedure; (2) declaratory relief; (3) intentional interference with prospective economic relations; (4) negligent interference with prospective economic relations; (5) intentional interference with contractual relations; (6) negligence; (7) defamation; and (8) Cartwright Act violation. Plaintiff is a Thoroughbred horse trainer.

  • Name

    JERRY HOLLENDORFER VS LOS ANGELES TURF CLUB INCORPORATED, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV34353

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendants point to no threats from plaintiffs, no letters from defendants pointing out the deficiencies of plaintiff’s case, no responses from plaintiff evincing a desire for litigation for an improper purpose, no stonewalling in discovery, and no naked attempts at restraint of trade. In short, there is nothing in the record that shows that shows subjective bad faith or improper motive on the part of plaintiff. Accordingly, the motion for attorney’s fees is denied.

  • Name

    COMPASSIONATE CARE HOME HEALTH AGENCY, LLC V. AMORINO ET AL.

  • Case No.

    12CECG02248

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2016

(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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19NWCP00092

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2019

Defendants are entitled to Judgment on Plaintiff's Sixth Cause of Action under the Cartwright Act, because Defendants are all within the same corporate family, and thus cannot be liable for such a violation. Plaintiff concedes Defendants' motion as to this cause of action. Accordingly, the court summarily adjudicates the sixth cause of action for violation of Business and Professions Code § 16720/Cartwright Act in favor of Defendants Ludowici Roof Tile, Inc.

  • Name

    CLAY TILE VENTURE INC VS LUDOWICI ROOF TILE INC

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00061346-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

Chandler, supra, 4 Cal.App.3d at p. 726 [“If Union has in fact violated the federal antitrust laws or the Cartwright Act, Chandler has an adequate remedy at law which he may enforce in the proper forum.”].)

  • Case No.

    ['21CECG02776', '21CECG03050']

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2021

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

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.)

  • Name

    REINER VS. COX COMMUNICATIONS CALIFORNIA LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01063705

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2019

The first, second, and third causes of action allege violations of the Cartwright Act, California’s antitrust statute (B&P Code §§ 16720, et seq.). The fourth cause of action alleges violation of California’s Unfair Business Practices Law (B&P Code § 17200). The fifth cause of action for declaratory relief seeks a declaration of the rights and duties of the parties. Motions: 1.

  • Name

    ALAN MOELLEKEN MD ETC VS COTTAGE HEALTH SYSTEM ET AL

  • Case No.

    1339785

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2011

Illegal Tying Arrangement under Cartwright Act The elements of a per se tying arrangement violating the Cartwright Act are: (1) a tying agreement, arrangement or condition existed whereby the sale of the tying product was linked to the sale of the tied product or service, (2) the party had sufficient economic power in the tying market to coerce the purchase of the tied product, (3) a substantial amount of sale was affected in the tied product, and (4) the complaining party sustained pecuniary loss as

  • Name

    ALBERTO LARA MENJIVAR, ET AL. VS RUBEN REYES RAMIREZ

  • Case No.

    23STCV02546

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The Defendants further assert that the 2COA for violation of the Cartwright Act fails to allege facts with specificity. The Defendants also argue that the 6COA for quiet title fails to allege facts sufficient to satisfy each element for quiet title. The Defendants further contend that the Complaint on whole is uncertain in that each of the COAs fail to identify which defendant against whom it is asserted. (Citing CRC Rule 2.112.)

  • Name

    WAGNER V. NAVONE

  • Case No.

    SCV 260479

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2018

Background: This action was brought under the Cartwright Act asserting claims that plaintiffs were improperly excluded from farmers markets. On July 1, 2013, one day before an opposition was due to defendants’ demurrer to plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, attorney for defendants, Timothy J. Trager, received an email from counsel for plaintiffs, Matt Da Vega.

  • Name

    JEFF HENDRICKSON ET AL VS SB CERTIFIED FARMERS ETC ET AL

  • Case No.

    1414931

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2013

.; (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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    17CV315406

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

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.].)

  • Name

    BERTUZZI VS. RENOVATE AMERICA, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01104434

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

Not only is competing against your former employee legal, but California law explicitly prohibits noncomplete agreements and contracts in restraint of trade. See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16600. Indeed, California law goes further in that it explicitly allows an employee (and even and an officer of a company) to make preparation to compete before resigning. However, Pfau fails to discuss the allegation that he misrepresented his credentials on LinkedIn to the detriment of Cross-Complainants business.

  • Name

    JEREMY PFAU VS RIKO WIEMER INTERNATIONAL, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV27719

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Fifteenth Affirmative Defense - (Violations of State and Local Laws) The relevant allegations are as follows: Plaintiff is barred from any relief based on Plaintiffs violations of State and local laws preventing restraint of trade and pursuit of a lawful profession. The court overrules the demurrer to this affirmative defense. Moving Party contends defendant has not alleged the state and local laws upon which this affirmative defense is based.

  • Name

    ERN ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. EASTWESTPRONTO, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00904412-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2017

The court notes Plaintiffs’ conversion, wrongful possession, tortious interference, Cartwright Act, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, injunctive relief, and part of the unfair competition claims are inextricably intertwined with the Distribution Agreement claims.

  • Name

    MD-7 US GROUP, INC. V. LAM

  • Case No.

    30-2011-00473529

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2021

.; (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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    17CV315406

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2020

Violation of Cartwright Act, Business & Professions Code Section 16700, et seq. 6. Breach of Written Contract 7. Aiding and Abetting On January 4, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed CVMC without prejudice. A Case Management Conference is set for March 25, 2019.

  • Name

    CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

  • Case No.

    KC070381

  • Hearing

    Mar 25, 2019

  • Judge

    Gloria White-Brown

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

To allow Chevron to recover fees for work on Cartwright Act issues simply because they overlap issues related to other causes of action, would create a judicially imposed reciprocity. This result is not intended by the Legislature and would frustrate legislative policy. [Citation.] The court concluded the unilateral fee shifting provision of the Cartwright Act prohibits an award of fees for successfully defending Cartwright Act and non-Cartwright Act claims that overlap.

  • Name

    HOROWITZ V. BROWN

  • Case No.

    30-2013-00679652-CU-BT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2019

“Whether a restraint of trade is reasonable is a question of fact to be determined at trial.” (Kolling, supra, 137 Cal.App.3d at pp. 726-727.) Here, Plaintiff contends it was coerced into accepting Section 1.1 of the 2016 Manufacturing Agreement because it previously negotiated and entered into the 2007 OEM Purchase Agreement, under which it agreed to pay $1,600,000 for long-term access to Defendant’s chips.

  • Name

    PACHECO V. GOODWILL OF SILICON VALLEY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20CV373306

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2024

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

“Whether a restraint of trade is reasonable is a question of fact to be determined at trial.” (Kolling, supra, 137 Cal.App.3d at pp. 726-727.) Here, Plaintiff contends it was coerced into accepting Section 1.1 of the 2016 Manufacturing Agreement because it previously negotiated and entered into the 2007 OEM Purchase Agreement, under which it agreed to pay $1,600,000 for long-term access to Defendant’s chips.

  • Name

    PACHECO V. GOODWILL OF SILICON VALLEY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20CV373306

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2024

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

“Whether a restraint of trade is reasonable is a question of fact to be determined at trial.” (Kolling, supra, 137 Cal.App.3d at pp. 726-727.) Here, Plaintiff contends it was coerced into accepting Section 1.1 of the 2016 Manufacturing Agreement because it previously negotiated and entered into the 2007 OEM Purchase Agreement, under which it agreed to pay $1,600,000 for long-term access to Defendant’s chips.

  • Name

    PACHECO V. GOODWILL OF SILICON VALLEY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20CV373306

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2024

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

“Whether a restraint of trade is reasonable is a question of fact to be determined at trial.” (Kolling, supra, 137 Cal.App.3d at pp. 726-727.) Here, Plaintiff contends it was coerced into accepting Section 1.1 of the 2016 Manufacturing Agreement because it previously negotiated and entered into the 2007 OEM Purchase Agreement, under which it agreed to pay $1,600,000 for long-term access to Defendant’s chips.

  • Name

    PACHECO V. GOODWILL OF SILICON VALLEY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20CV373306

  • Hearing

    Feb 17, 2024

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

“Whether a restraint of trade is reasonable is a question of fact to be determined at trial.” (Kolling, supra, 137 Cal.App.3d at pp. 726-727.) Here, Plaintiff contends it was coerced into accepting Section 1.1 of the 2016 Manufacturing Agreement because it previously negotiated and entered into the 2007 OEM Purchase Agreement, under which it agreed to pay $1,600,000 for long-term access to Defendant’s chips.

  • Name

    PACHECO V. GOODWILL OF SILICON VALLEY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20CV373306

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2024

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

“Whether a restraint of trade is reasonable is a question of fact to be determined at trial.” (Kolling, supra, 137 Cal.App.3d at pp. 726-727.) Here, Plaintiff contends it was coerced into accepting Section 1.1 of the 2016 Manufacturing Agreement because it previously negotiated and entered into the 2007 OEM Purchase Agreement, under which it agreed to pay $1,600,000 for long-term access to Defendant’s chips.

  • Name

    PACHECO V. GOODWILL OF SILICON VALLEY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20CV373306

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2024

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

“Whether a restraint of trade is reasonable is a question of fact to be determined at trial.” (Kolling, supra, 137 Cal.App.3d at pp. 726-727.) Here, Plaintiff contends it was coerced into accepting Section 1.1 of the 2016 Manufacturing Agreement because it previously negotiated and entered into the 2007 OEM Purchase Agreement, under which it agreed to pay $1,600,000 for long-term access to Defendant’s chips.

  • Name

    PACHECO V. GOODWILL OF SILICON VALLEY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20CV373306

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2024

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

(Id. at ¶ 157.) 10 The 4AC sets forth the following causes of action: (1) Declaratory Judgment; 11 (2) Declaratory Judgment; (3) Declaratory Judgment; (4) Declaratory Judgment; (5) Declaratory 12 Judgment; (6) Declaratory Judgment; (7) Violations of the Cartwright Act; (8) Violations of the 13 Unfair Competition Law and the Unfair Business Practices Act; (9) Intentional Interference with 14 Prospective Economic Advantage; and (10) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations. 15 On January 26, 2018, the

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    17CV315406

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2021

Violation of the Cartwright Act. The Demurrers are sustained with leave to amend because Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) Section 514(a) preempts all state law causes of action. 29 USC § 1144(a); Blue Cross of Cal. v. Anesthesia Care Assocs. Medical Grp., Inc., 187 F.3d 1045, 1051 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff fails to provide any argument or authority to legitimately dispute that ERISA preempts the state law claims.

  • Name

    RAMIN M. ROOHIPOUR, M.D., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS ILWU-PMA WELFARE PLAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20TRCV00369

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

Furthermore, California law imposes significant limitations on contracts in restraint of trade. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600 et seq.) Here, the nondisclosure agreement at issue is a contract in writing; thus it is presumed to have sufficient consideration, and Mr. Parrish must demonstrate the lack thereof. (Civ. Code §§ 1614, 1615.) Per Mr.

  • Name

    COASTAL SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING INC VS PARRISH

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00005591-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2018

Cal. 1972) 340 F.Supp. 273, 275, stating: "To require a former employee, who has developed a new idea or concept following the termination of his employment and which is not based upon the employer's secrets or confidential information, to turn over the fruits of his labors to his former employer constitutes, in the opinion of this Court, an unreasonable restraint of trade.")

  • Name

    AEROVIRONMENT INC VS. GABRIEL TORRES

  • Case No.

    56-2015-00465460-CU-BC-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2015

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.

  • Name

    CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

  • Case No.

    KC070381

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2019

  • Judge

    Gloria White-Brown

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1236 (in order to sufficiently plead a Cartwright Act claim, "the plaintiff must allege in its complaint certain facts in addition to the elements of the alleged unlawful act so that the defendant can understand the nature of the alleged wrong and discovery is not merely a blind 'fishing expedition' for some unknown wrongful acts.") The FAC sufficiently alleges standing. See opposition memorandum, pp. 2-5.

  • Name

    SPOTLIGHT ON COASTAL CORRUPTION VS KINSEY

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00028494-CU-MC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2017

Accordingly, the court strikes the following allegations and prayers ¶ 10, line 16: "injunctive relief' ¶ 167, line 22: "injunctive relief' Prayer for Relief, ¶ 9 Prayer for Relief, ¶ 13, lines 2-3: "be enjoined from further acts of restraint of trade or unfair competitions" and "injunctive." Plaintiff concedes Defendants' motion as to the PAGA cause of action and prayer. Defendants' motion to strike the PAGA cause of action is granted. The court strikes ¶¶ 203-216 and Prayer, ¶ 8.

  • Name

    HORTON VS SOCKET PAYMENT SERVICES [E-FILED]

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00004529-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2017

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

  • Name

    CASSEL V. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    17-CV-319202

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2019

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 132, 152-154 [Cartwright Act case].) These non-FEHA cases provide only a moderate amount of persuasive authority that the policy in favor of encouraging settlements always outweighs the policy in favor of encouraging litigation to vindicate private rights.

  • Name

    SANDRA MENDEZ VS STRATASYS DIRECT INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC654471

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2018

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.)

  • Name

    KEVIN SAURER ET AL VS GADFLY COMMUNICATIONS INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC648516

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

.¿¿ “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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19STCV45311

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

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.

  • Name

    CITRUS OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLGY VS CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH

  • Case No.

    KC070381

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

  • Judge

    Gloria White-Brown

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 132, 152-154 (Cartwright Act case).) These non-FEHA cases provide only a moderate amount of persuasive authority that the policy in favor of encouraging settlements always outweighs the policy in favor of encouraging litigation to vindicate private rights.

  • Name

    SANDRA MENDEZ VS STRATASYS DIRECT INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC654471

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2018

Dibagohar’s argument is based on a false premise: that the Board’s revocation of a license is a per se restraint of trade. To support this premise, Dibagohar relies on U.S. v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., (“Socony”) (1940) 310 U.S. 150, 224. Pet. Op. Br. at 13. Socony does not plausibly stand for this proposition. Socony held that price-fixing is per se anticompetitive without need for an inquiry to its reasonableness. Id. at 224, n.59.

  • Name

    HOMAN DIBAGOHAR DC VS THE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS

  • Case No.

    BS171229

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2018

Moyes did not discuss the UCL, but rather whether a contract constituted a contract in restraint of trade as defined in Business and Professions Code section 16600. In opposition, Rainer contends that the UCL applies to private disputes. (Opposition, 12.) Additionally, Rainer contends that Cross-Defendants’ reliance on Moyes is misplaced and that the third cause of action sufficiently alleges illegal and unfair conduct which continues to cause harm to Rainer. (Opposition, 13-14.)

  • Name

    PACWEST BANKCORP, A DELAWARE CORPORATION VS DAVID I RAINER

  • Case No.

    20STCV46002

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants on September 29, 2022 for (1) Unfair Competition Under Business and Professions Code §17200; (2) Violations of Health & Safety Code §1278.5; (3) Violation of Government Code §12653; (4) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (5) Violation of the Cartwright Act; (6) Conspiracy; and (7) Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. On February 16, 2023, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complain.

  • Name

    SOHAIL NASIM, M.D., ET AL. VS HCA HEALTHCARE INC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22VECV01444

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1236 (in order to sufficiently plead a Cartwright Act claim, "the plaintiff must allege in its complaint certain facts in addition to the elements of the alleged unlawful act so that the defendant can understand the nature of the alleged wrong and discovery is not merely a blind 'fishing expedition' for some unknown wrongful acts.")

  • Name

    SPOTLIGHT ON COASTAL CORRUPTION VS KINSEY

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00028494-CU-MC-CTL

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2017

Under these circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that the exception for the general prohibition against contracts in restraint of trade provided in Business and Professions Code section 16601 does not apply. (See, Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Ins. Servs. v.

  • Name

    BLUE MOUNTAIN ENTER., LLC V. OWEN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    FCS049313

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2019

Finally, plaintiff contends that the defendants' acts constituted a restraint of trade in violation of common law and statutory antitrust laws." Id. at 105. The Court held: "It is clear from the stipulated facts and plaintiff's allegations that she does not seek to recover on behalf of the corporation for injury done to the corporation by defendants.

  • Name

    JOHNSON VS. HUFFMAN

  • Case No.

    37-2015-00034545-CU-BT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2017

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 498, 506 (“By apportioning 65 percent of the fees to defending Cartwright Act claims, the court implicitly found this was predominantly an antitrust action based on the evidence before it and Judge Joseph's characterization of the case. “The court had the discretion to make that determination”). The bottom line is that this Court has not yet had occasion to consider whether apportionment is appropriate in the present case.

  • Case No.

    Mount Olympus Mortgage Co. v. Anderson

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2016

The only authority cited for this argument is Civil Code §§ 16600 and 16601, which prohibit contracts in restraint of trade, with limited exceptions. Neither prevents a court from enjoining a party from working with a particular entity. (See Alliant Ins. Services, Inc. v. Gaddy (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1311–12 [upholding injunction prohibiting employment with another party when trade secrets were at issue].) The Motion to Strike is DENIED as to the prayer for injunctive relief.

  • Name

    A & A AEROSPACE, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS ANDRES MARQUEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL,, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18STCV05225

  • Hearing

    Mar 19, 2019

Vista Unified School Dist. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 672, 689; see Carver, 119 CalA.pp.4th at 501 (“By apportioning 65 percent of the fees to defending Cartwright Act claims, the court implicitly found this was predominantly an antitrust action based on the evidence before it… ”); PM Group, Inc. v. Stewart (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 55, 68-69 (10% decrease in total award to account for non-compensable claims); Logtale, Ltd. v. IKOR, Inc. (N.D.

  • Name

    ESZLINGER VS UNITED STUDIOS OF SELF DEFENSE, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2010-00404621

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2018

Vista Unified School Dist. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 672, 689; see Carver, 119 CalA.pp.4th at 501 (“By apportioning 65 percent of the fees to defending Cartwright Act claims, the court implicitly found this was predominantly an antitrust action based on the evidence before it… ”); PM Group, Inc. v. Stewart (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 55, 68-69 (10% decrease in total award to account for non-compensable claims); Logtale, Ltd. v. IKOR, Inc. (N.D.

  • Name

    ESZLINGER VS UNITED STUDIOS OF SELF DEFENSE, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2010-00404621-CU-BT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2018

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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    20SMCV01005

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

The Cartwright Act is the state’s principal antitrust legislation and generally outlaws any agreements that restrain trade or competition or which fix or control prices. (In re Cipro Cases I & II (2015) 61 Cal.4th 116, 136 (“In re Cipro”).) The purpose of the Cartwright Act fundamentally differs from the purpose of Section 51.5.

  • Name

    TECH EYES, INC. VS GOOGLE LLC

  • Case No.

    17CV307381

  • Hearing

    May 22, 2018

The first, second, and third causes of action (for violations of the Cartwright Act [Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16720, et seq.]), and the fifth cause of action (for declaratory relief), are brought by plaintiff Moelleken. The fourth cause of action (for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200) is brought by plaintiffs Moelleken, Alan Moelleken, M.D., Inc., and Carrillo Surgery Center, Inc.

  • Name

    ALAN MOELLEKEN MD ETC VS COTTAGE HEALTH SYSTEM ET AL

  • Case No.

    1339785

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2011

In response, Plaintiff contends that his allegations are sufficient to meet the elements of this tort because establish a restraint of trade. (See id. at p. 409.) The portion of Della Penna Plaintiff cites to support his argument is taken from Justice Mosk’s concurrence, does not reflect the main opinion of the case, and is not controlling given the other case law on this subject.

  • Name

    CHRISTOPHER T BARONE VS FLUID CONSERVATION SYSTEMS INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC656201

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2017

.; (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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    17CV315406

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

(See Carver, 119 CalA.pp.4th at 501 (“By apportioning 65 percent of the fees to defending Cartwright Act claims, the court implicitly found this was predominantly an antitrust action based on the evidence before it and Judge Joseph's characterization of the case. “The court had the discretion to make that determination”); PM Group, Inc. v. Stewart (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 55, 68-69 (10% decrease in total attorney fees awarded to account for non-compensable claims); Holguin v.

  • Name

    ESZLINGER VS UNITED STUDIOS OF SELF DEFENSE, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2010-00404621-CU-BT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2018

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope