What is restraint of trade?

Useful Resources for Restraint of Trade

Rulings on Restraint of Trade

1-25 of 113 results

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

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

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

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

RICHMOND COMPASSIONATE VS RICH

Great Western Financial Corp. (1968), supra, 69 Cal.2d 305, 316-317, the court noted that ‘ “contracts, 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

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2017

RICHMOND COMPASSIONATE VS RICH

Great Western Financial Corp. (1968), supra, 69 Cal.2d 305, 316-317, the court noted that ‘ “contracts, 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

  • Hearing

    Oct 12, 2017

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

JEFF HENDRICKSON ET AL VS SB CERTIFIED FARMERS ETC ET AL

“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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2013

SHAW’S STRUCTURES UNLIMITED, INC. V. FRIENDS OF THE BIG FRESNO FAIR

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.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2016

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

    Oct 26, 2020

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

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

    Sep 23, 2020

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

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

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

RICHMOND COMPASSIONATE VS. RICHMOND PATIENT'S GROUP

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.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Oct 28, 2020

ELECINIC CORP VS. KSC INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ELECINIC CORP VS. KSC INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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.