What is restraint of trade?

Useful Resources for Restraint of Trade

Recent Rulings on Restraint of Trade

101-113 of 113 results

COASTAL GROWERS SUPPLY VS. ANACAPA AGRO TECH SUPPLY

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.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2012

COASTAL GROWERS SUPPLY VS. ANACAPA AGRO TECH SUPPLY

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.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2012

PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY CASES

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.

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2012

MOELLEKEN ETC VS COTTAGE HOSPITAL ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2012

COTTAGE HEALTH SYSTEM ET AL VS TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY

The Moelleken Action asserts causes of action against Cottage and the Neurosurgeons under California’s Cartwright Act. (FAC, ¶ 17.) Cottage is obligated to pay, has paid for, and will continue to pay for the defense costs of the Neurosurgeons in responding to the Moelleken Action. (FAC, ¶ 16.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2012

ALAN MOELLEKEN MD ETC VS COTTAGE HEALTH SYSTEM ET AL

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).

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2011

ALAN MOELLEKEN MD ETC VS COTTAGE HEALTH SYSTEM ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2011

ALAN MOELLEKEN MD ETC VS COTTAGE HEALTH SYSTEM ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2011

ALAN MOELLEKEN MD ETC VS COTTAGE HEALTH SYSTEM ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2010

ALAN MOELLEKEN MD ETC VS COTTAGE HEALTH SYSTEM ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2010

TODD MARINCHAK VS. SPARKS FAMILY TRUST DATED JULY 5,2004 A TRUST ET AL

S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST AARSHEIM AND WOMACK VIOLATES BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 16600 AS AN ILLEGAL RESTRAINT OF TRADE. =(302/CWW/PB)

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2009

NORTHERN VS. RICHEMONT NORTH AMERICA, INC.

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)

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2005

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

JEFFREY E. MITCHELL V. STRATUS MEDIA GROUP, INC., ET AL.

For example, because of its effect in restraint of trade, inevitable disclosure “cannot be used as a substitute for proving actual or threatened misappropriation of trade secrets.” (Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1464.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 01, 1970

  « first    1 2 3 4 5

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.