§Why CasetextPricing

Alaska Rent-A-Car Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER re: Motions at docket 164 , 170 , 172 , 178 , 180 , 182 and 183 ; Docket 164 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; docket 170 DENIED; DOCKET 172 denied: docket 178 DENIED: docket 180 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; docket 182 DENIED: docket 183 DENIED; The First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED, with prejudice, in its entirety as to Defendants Avis Group Holdings, Inc., Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., Avis Car Rental Group, Inc., and Budget Rent a Car System, Inc.; The First, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Causes of Action of the First Amended Complaint are DISMISSED, with prejudice. Signed

72 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 236,111 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

  2. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

    475 U.S. 574 (1986)   Cited 113,076 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

  3. Lopez v. Smith

    203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 23,810 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his complaint if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the deficiencies in the complaint

  4. Taylor v. List

    880 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 9,004 times
    Holding that no § 1983 liability exists absent personal participation

  5. Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.

    467 U.S. 752 (1984)   Cited 1,433 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary have a "complete unity of interest" because "their objectives are common" and "their general corporate actions are guided or determined not by two separate corporate consciousness, but one"

  6. State Oil Co. v. Khan

    522 U.S. 3 (1997)   Cited 688 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court of appeals was correct to apply Supreme Court precedent despite its "infirmities, its increasingly wobbly, moth-eaten foundations" (alteration in original)

  7. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co.

    495 U.S. 328 (1990)   Cited 834 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an antitrust injury is an injury that is "attributable to an anti-competitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny"

  8. Miller v. Gammie

    335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 1,605 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over an order that "did not expressly deny the motion" but "deferred ruling on immunity"

  9. Continental T. V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.

    433 U.S. 36 (1977)   Cited 991 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that vertical nonprice restraints are subject to the rule of reason

  10. Edgar v. MITE Corp.

    457 U.S. 624 (1982)   Cited 769 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders" are a corporation's internal affairs

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,589 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

    15 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 2,902 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Making illegal "[e]very contract, combination ..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade"