This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert LLC v. Century Theatres Inc.

Plaintiff alleging antitrust injury must show loss from competitive-reducing aspect of defendant’s conduct, not that conduct actually rendered market less competitive.





Cite as

2011 DJDAR 14888

Published

Oct. 2, 2011

Filing Date

Sep. 28, 2011


FLAGSHIP THEATRES

FLAGSHIP THEATRES

OF PALM DESERT, LLC,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

CENTURY THEATRES, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

 

No. B211597

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. SC090481)

California Courts of Appeal

Second Appellate District

Division One

Filed September 29, 2011

 

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
    AND DENYING REHEARING

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

 

THE COURT:

 

     IT IS ORDERED that the opinion filed herein on August 31, 2011, be modified in the following particulars:

 

     1.  On page 10, at the end of the citation in the second full paragraph, insert after ?p. 489? the following, so that it now reads:

 

(Id. at p. 489; see generally 2A Areeda et al., Antitrust Law (3d ed. 2007) ¶ 337, pp. 82-96.)

 

     2.  On page 11, first full paragraph, insert a new footnote 8 after the quoted sentence ending with ?reason? and before the citation ?(Id. at pp. 342-344.)?  Add as footnote 8 the following footnote text, which will require renumbering of all subsequent footnotes:

 

We note that some lower courts have not used the term ?antitrust injury? consistently, sometimes employing it ?comprehensively to include injury-in-fact caused by the defendant? or the ?impact on competition? of the defendant?s alleged conduct.  (2A Areeda et al., Antitrust Law (3d ed. 2007) ¶ 337a, p. 83; see generally id., pp. 83-84 & fns. 3, 4 [collecting cases].)  We, however, ?use that term in the precisely focused sense of Brunswick.?  (Id., pp. 83-84.)

 

     On page 20, fourth line from the top, delete the text beginning with ?If it is, then still further questions arise ? and ending with the citation ?Sullivan & Grimes, supra, § 3.4b1, pp. 106-107.)?

    

This modification does not have an effect on the judgment.

     The petition for rehearing is denied.

 

 

MALLANO, P.J.         ROTHSCHILD, J.          JOHNSON, J.

 

 

#264334

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424