United States Ninth Circuit

Summary judgment for defendant in an action between competitors in auto parts markets, in which plaintiff alleged that defendant violated antitrust laws in the receipt of favorable prices from a manufacturer, is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiff did not show that defendant had actual knowledge, trade knowledge or a duty to inquire whether the favorable prices it received might be prohibited by the Robinson-Patman Act; 2) plaintiff did not show that defendant entered into an agreement in restraint of trade with the manufacturer, in violation of the Sherman Act; and 3) under a rule of reason analysis, even assuming the defendant and the manufacturer had an agreement, the Sherman Act claim failed because the plaintiff produced no evidence that the vertical restraint actually injured competition.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/19/2013
• Published 07/19/2013

Judges

• PER CURIAM

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel