For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
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.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...
Daily appellate reports
Sign up for Daily Journal emails
    Filter by date
     to 
    Search by Case Name
    Search by Judge
    Search by Case Number
    Search by DJ Citation Number
    Search by Category
    Search by Court
Name Category Published
Sidibe v. Sutter Health
Removing the word purpose from two jury instructions required reversal because it resulted in the jury not considering defendant's possible anticompetitive purpose when evaluating an unreasonable course of conduct claim. 		Antitrust 9th Jun. 5, 2024
Beverage v. Apple, Inc.
Apple's unilateral market conduct was neither a violation of antitrust law nor unfair competition law. 		Antitrust, Consumer Law 6DCA Apr. 29, 2024
Amended Opinion: U.S. Wholesale Outlet & Distribution v. Innovation Ventures, LLC
District court made several legal and factual errors regarding whether companies were competitors in antitrust action. 		Antitrust 9th Dec. 26, 2023
Coronavirus Reporter v. Apple, Inc.
Plaintiffs failed to state antitrust claim arising from Apple's rejection of their apps for distribution through the App Store, because they did not sufficiently allege a plausible relevant market. 		Antitrust 9th Nov. 6, 2023
U.S. Wholesale Outlet & Distribution V. Innovation Ventures, LLC
District court made several legal and factual errors regarding whether companies were competitors in antitrust action. 		Antitrust 9th Jul. 20, 2023
Ahn v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.
Sales executive lacked standing to bring a Cartwright Act antitrust claim because his job termination was not an "antitrust injury." 		Antitrust 4DCA/1 Jul. 6, 2023
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
Market-definition error in Sherman Act litigation was harmless where the plaintiff alleged a single-brand aftermarket but failed to demonstrate consumers were unaware of the aftermarket restrictions before entering a contract. 		Antitrust 9th Apr. 25, 2023
Honey Bum, LLC v. Fashion Nova, Inc.
Summary judgment proper on plaintiff clothing vendor's Sherman Act Section 1 group boycott claim because it failed to establish a material dispute as to whether the other clothing vendors agreed among themselves to boycott plaintiff. 		Antitrust 9th Mar. 23, 2023
Flaa v. Hollywood Foreign Press Association
Journalists who were denied membership in press association did not establish per se restraint of trade under Sherman Act because association had not cut off access to an essential competitive resource or possessed market power. 		Antitrust 9th Dec. 9, 2022
Dreamstime.com LLC v. Google LLC
Online image supplier's antitrust claim against Google failed after it repeatedly affirmed, as the relevant antitrust market, only the advertising market and not the search market. 		Antitrust 9th Dec. 7, 2022
PLS.com LLC v. National Association of Realtors
Real estate listing company adequately alleged antitrust injury because it alleged that competitors' cooperation policy harmed both sellers' agents and buyers' agents. 		Antitrust 9th Apr. 27, 2022
Amended Opinion: SmileDirectClub LLC v. Tippins
Teledentistry company adequately pled anticompetitive concerted action by members of the Dental Board of California under the Sherman Act. 		Antitrust 9th Apr. 22, 2022
SmileDirectClub LLC v. Tippins
Teledentistry company adequately pled anticompetitive concerted action by members of the Dental Board of California under the Sherman Act. 		Antitrust 9th Mar. 18, 2022
In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
Plaintiffs failed to state a conspiracy claim when the allegations showed that the competitors were reacting to the same market pressures and taking similar actions that served their interests. 		Antitrust 9th Mar. 8, 2022
Optronic Technologies v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic
Where defendants have conspired to violate antitrust laws and harmed a market's competitive structure, they remains liable for the continuing injuries the scheme brought about. 		Antitrust 9th Dec. 7, 2021
City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders
Oakland's inability to pay for an NFL team was not a direct result of the NFL's ultracompetitive pricing for its teams and it therefore did not have standing to pursue a Sherman Act antitrust claim. 		Antitrust 9th Dec. 3, 2021
Stromberg v. Qualcomm
Antitrust class action certification was erroneous where choice of law analysis incorrectly concluded that other states had no interest in applying their laws. 		Antitrust 9th Sep. 30, 2021
Aya Healthcare Services v. AMN Healthcare
Non-solicitation agreement that was reasonably necessary to parties pro-competitive collaboration was subject to 'rule-of-reason' standard. 		Antitrust 9th Aug. 20, 2021
National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Alston
District court did not err in enjoining defendant's caps on education-related benefits because defendant could have imposed less restrictive restraints on those benefits. 		Antitrust USSC Jun. 22, 2021
Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theatres, Inc.
Plaintiff did not present substantial evidence of anticompetitive effects in the relevant geographic market. 		Antitrust 2DCA/1 Oct. 6, 2020
Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theatres, Inc.
Plaintiff did not present substantial evidence of anticompetitive effects in the relevant geographic market. 		Antitrust 2DCA/1 Sep. 4, 2020
Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc.
Appellant's policy of licensing its patents to original equipment manufacturers was not an anticompetitive violation of the Sherman Act. 		Antitrust 9th Aug. 12, 2020
Modification: Ben-E-Lect v. Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Ins. Co.
Evidence demonstrated that defendant had sufficient market power in the California small group health insurance market to impair competition significantly. 		Antitrust 1DCA/3 Jul. 24, 2020
Ben-E-Lect v. Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Ins. Co.
Evidence demonstrated that defendant had sufficient market power in the California small group health insurance market to impair competition significantly. 		Antitrust 1DCA/3 Jul. 7, 2020
In re NCAA Athletic Grant-in-Aid CAP Antitrust Litigation
NCAA's rules that restricted education-related benefits were unlawful restraints of trade because there was no procompetitive justification and less restrictive alternatives were feasible. 		Antitrust 9th May 19, 2020
In re NFL Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litigation
Plaintiffs' allegations of facts supporting their Sherman Antitrust Act Sections 1 and 2 claims were adequate to state a claim and survive defendants' motion to dismiss. 		Antitrust 9th Aug. 14, 2019
Apple, Inc. v. Pepper
Plaintiffs who purchased apps from Apple's App Store were direct purchasers under 'Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois' and may sue Apple for alleged monopolization of the iPhone app retail market. 		Antitrust USSC May 14, 2019
DeHoog v. Anheuser-Busch
Where party to merger is required to divest entirely its interest in relevant market, plaintiffs fail to make prima facie Clayton Act showing that merger 'substantially lessens competition.' 		Antitrust 9th Aug. 9, 2018
Gold Medal LLC v. USA Track & Field
Olympic Committee entitled to implied antitrust immunity under the Ted Stevens Olympic & Amateur Sports Act, on the ground that advertising restrictions were essential to performance of its duties. 		Antitrust 9th Aug. 8, 2018
Arandell Corp. v. Centerpoint Energy Services, Inc.
Under the 'Copperweld doctrine' a wholly owned subsidiary that engages in a conspiracy in furtherance of an anti-competitive purpose could sustain liability under the Sherman Act, where collusion existed with parties outside that corporate relationship. 		Antitrust 9th Aug. 7, 2018
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.