United States Tenth Circuit

In a suit brought by Utah optometrists alleging that exclusion of optometrists from a network of providers violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where plaintiffs: 1) failed to present evidence of a conspiracy between defendants, ophthalmologists and a managed care company, that tends to exclude the possibility of independent conduct; 2) failed to raise a genuine issue of fact on their tying claim; and 3) lacked standing to assert their section 2 claims.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/07/2006
• Published 09/07/2006

Judges

• TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge., Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, PORFILIO, Circuit Judge, and JOHNSON, District Judge.

Court

• United States Tenth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Daniel L. Berman, Berman & Savage, Salt Lake City, UT, (Peggy A. Tomsic, Tomsic Law Firm, LLC, Salt Lake City, UT, with him on the briefs), appearing for Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Richard W. Casey, Howrey, L.L.P., Salt Lake City, Utah (Gary F. Bendinger and John H. Bogart, Howrey, L.L.P., Salt Lake City, Utah;  James S. Jardine and John Mackay, Ray, Quinney & Nebeker, Salt Lake city, Utah;  and William G. Kopit and Patricia Wagner, Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C., Washington, DC, with him on the brief) appearing for Appellee.