Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
06-15636
|
Centerprise International v. Micron Technology Inc.
In antitrust case, plaintiff fails to show that higher U.S. prices for computer memory chip proximately caused its foreign injury. |
Antitrust |
|
Oct. 10, 2008 | |
A116798
|
Clayworth v. Pfizer Inc.
Pharmacies who 'pass-on' claimed overcharges to customers are not injured by price-fixing. |
Antitrust |
|
Aug. 20, 2008 | |
06-16230
|
Theme Promotions Inc. v. News America Marketing FSI
Right of first refusal agreements between publisher of coupon inserts and packaged goods companies violate California antitrust law. |
Antitrust |
|
Aug. 20, 2008 | |
06-15636
|
Centerprise International v. Micron Technology Inc.
In antitrust case, plaintiff fails to show that higher U.S. prices for computer memory chip proximately caused its foreign injury. |
Antitrust |
|
Aug. 14, 2008 | |
A116798
|
Clayworth v. Pfizer Inc.
Pharmacies who 'pass-on' claimed overcharges to customers are not injured by price-fixing. |
Antitrust |
|
Jul. 29, 2008 | |
05-17328
|
Gerlinger v. Amazon.com Inc.
In antitrust case, plaintiff lacks Article III standing because he did not show he suffered injury-in-fact. |
Antitrust |
|
May 27, 2008 | |
08-55105
|
Delaware Valley Surgical Supply Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson
Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue antitrust claim because it is not 'direct purchaser' of defendant's products. |
Antitrust |
|
May 1, 2008 | |
06-35538
|
Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Maleng
Central warehousing ban, erroneously found to be hybrid restraint, is not preempted by Section 1 of Sherman Act. |
Antitrust |
|
Apr. 2, 2008 | |
05-16549
|
Kendall v. Visa U.S.A. Inc.
Plaintiffs failed to state claim under Section 1 of Sherman Act when they did not detail specific facts of alleged conspiracy. |
Antitrust |
|
Mar. 10, 2008 | |
05-35627
|
Cascade Health Solutions v. PeaceHealth
Bundled discounts offered by hospital care provider are not exclusionary conduct under Section 2 of Sherman Act unless they are predatory. |
Antitrust |
|
Feb. 4, 2008 | |
06-35538
|
Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Maleng
Central warehousing ban, erroneously found to be hybrid restraint, is not preempted by Section 1 of Sherman Act. |
Antitrust |
|
Jan. 30, 2008 | |
05-55367
|
Wah Chang v. Duke Energy Trading Marketing LLC
Filed rate doctrine bars electricity purchaser's suit against energy companies whose market manipulation resulted in unfair tariffs set by FERC. |
Antitrust |
|
Nov. 20, 2007 | |
05-15676
|
Sanders v. Brown
Plaintiff fails to allege that state statutes mandate conduct that in all cases violates federal antitrust law. |
Antitrust |
|
Sep. 26, 2007 | |
05-17352
|
E. & J. Gallo Winery v. EnCana Corp.
Natural gas supplier's motion for summary judgment is properly denied where wine producer's claims are not necessarily barred by filed rate doctrine. |
Antitrust |
|
Sep. 19, 2007 | |
05-56023
|
LinkLine Communications Inc. v. SBC California Inc.
Internet Service Provider, alleging supplier and competitor's pricing scheme creates anticompetitive price squeeze, states potentially valid claim under Sherman Antitrust Act. |
Antitrust |
|
Sep. 11, 2007 | |
05-35627
|
Cascade Health Solutions v. PeaceHealth
Bundled discounts offered by hospital care provider are not exclusionary conduct under Section 2 of Sherman Act unless they are predatory. |
Antitrust |
|
Sep. 5, 2007 | |
06-480
|
Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. v. PSKS Inc.
In antitrust case, rule of reason is found to be proper standard for testing vertical price restraints. |
Antitrust |
|
Jun. 28, 2007 | |
A112591
|
Belton v. Comcast Cable Holdings LLC.
Comcast offer of music services only as part of basic cable tier package is not unfair tying arrangement under Unruh Act. |
Antitrust |
|
Jun. 11, 2007 | |
A112591
|
Belton v. Comcast Cable Holdings LLC.
Comcast offer of music services only as part of basic cable tier package is not unfair tying arrangement under Unruh Act. |
Antitrust |
|
Jun. 10, 2007 | |
B187172
|
Lori Rubinstein Physical Therapy Inc. v. PTPN Inc.
With passage of Insurance Code Section 10133, Legislature has immunized certain conduct of health insurer and group of providers from antitrust liability. |
Antitrust |
|
Mar. 23, 2007 | |
05-381
|
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co.
Because predatory-bidding and predatory-pricing involve unilateral pricing measures in order to achieve supracompetitive profits, similar legal standards apply to both. |
Antitrust |
|
Mar. 14, 2007 | |
03-35669
|
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon v. Weyerhauser Company
Predatory bidding can be shown without evidence that buyer operated at loss and dangerous probability of recouping losses existed. |
Antitrust |
|
Mar. 7, 2007 | |
02-56509
|
Dagher v. Saudi Refining Inc.
Gas station owners may sue oil companies for fixing prices in violation of Sherman Act. |
Antitrust |
|
Jun. 18, 2006 | |
04-805
|
Texaco Inc. v. Dagher
Gasoline service station owners' antitrust claim cannot prevail where pricing decisions of legitimate joint venture are not per se unlawful. |
Antitrust |
|
Mar. 23, 2006 | |
B168079
|
Eddins v. Sumner Redstone
Unfair Practices Act applied to video rental retailers' claim that their distributors did not receive same terms as well-known retailer. |
Antitrust |
|
Feb. 6, 2006 | |
04-905
|
Volvo Trucks North America Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC Inc.
Dealer does not state claim for secondary price discrimination for specially ordered products where evidence of head-on-head transactions reveal no substantial competitive injury. |
Antitrust |
|
Feb. 5, 2006 | |
G034640
|
RLH Industries Inc. v. SBC Communications Inc.
Commerce Clause does not bar application of California antitrust law to out-of-state anticompetitive conduct that causes injury in California. |
Antitrust |
|
Jan. 31, 2006 | |
04-905
|
Volvo Trucks North America Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC Inc.
Dealer does not state claim for secondary price discrimination where evidence of head-on-head transactions reveals no substantial competitive injury. |
Antitrust |
|
Jan. 12, 2006 | |
B175179
|
People's Choice Wireless Inc. v. Verizon Wireless
Cell phone network did not participate in unfair competition when it imposed 'hold-back' period on independent dealers. |
Antitrust |
|
Oct. 25, 2005 | |
03-56588
|
Freeman v. Lasky, Haas & Cohler
'Noerr-Pennington' immunity doctrine may apply to discovery misconduct in antitrust action. |
Antitrust |
|
Aug. 23, 2005 |