19 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,788 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"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,807 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research
401 U.S. 321 (1971) Cited 2,508 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims based on continuing conspiracies accrue each time "a defendant commits an act that injures a plaintiffs business"
United States v. Grinnell Corp.
384 U.S. 563 (1966) Cited 2,649 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding a series of three acquisitions "eliminated any possibility of an outbreak of competition" and thereby "perfected the monopoly power to exclude competitors and fix prices."
F.T.C. v. Stefanchik
559 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 684 times
Holding "the district court did not abuse its discretion by holding the defendants liable for the full amount of loss incurred by consumers"
Anheuser-Busch v. Natural Beverage Distributors
69 F.3d 337 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 747 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that terminating sanctions are available when "a party has engaged deliberately in deceptive practices that undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings"
Varner v. Peterson Farms
371 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2004) Cited 212 times
Holding that performance of an anticompetitive agreement is not sufficient to restart statute of limitations
Pace Industries, Inc. v. Three Phoenix Co.
813 F.2d 234 (9th Cir. 1987) Cited 141 times
Holding that each phase of a single enforcement action does not give rise to new, actionable overt acts
Eichman v. Fotomat Corp.
871 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1989) Cited 84 times
Holding that a plaintiff's prior state court action alleging state antitrust claims did not toll the statute of limitations on his federal antitrust claim filed in a subsequent federal action, because "[i]f the filing of a state antitrust claim could equitably toll the federal antitrust statute of limitations, this would result in a judicially mandated tacking of state limitations periods onto the federal limits"
Twin City Sportserv. v. Charles O. Finley
512 F.2d 1264 (9th Cir. 1975) Cited 110 times
In Twin City Sportservice, Inc. v. Charles O. Finley & Co., Inc., 512 F.2d 1264 (9th Cir.1975), for example, we assessed an antitrust claim by a baseball franchise against stadium concessionaires without any reference to the baseball exemption.
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 329,569 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 15 - Suits by persons injured
15 U.S.C. § 15 Cited 5,683 times 35 Legal Analyses
Granting private right of action to anyone who has been injured "by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws ..."
Section 15b - Limitation of actions
15 U.S.C. § 15b Cited 899 times 2 Legal Analyses
Establishing a four-year limitations period for antitrust claims

Le et al v. Zuffa, Llc

19 Cited authorities

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"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that claims based on continuing conspiracies accrue each time "a defendant commits an act that injures a plaintiffs business"

Holding a series of three acquisitions "eliminated any possibility of an outbreak of competition" and thereby "perfected the monopoly power to exclude competitors and fix prices."

Holding "the district court did not abuse its discretion by holding the defendants liable for the full amount of loss incurred by consumers"

Holding that terminating sanctions are available when "a party has engaged deliberately in deceptive practices that undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings"

Holding that performance of an anticompetitive agreement is not sufficient to restart statute of limitations

Holding that each phase of a single enforcement action does not give rise to new, actionable overt acts

In Twin City Sportservice, Inc. v. Charles O. Finley & Co., Inc., 512 F.2d 1264 (9th Cir.1975), for example, we assessed an antitrust claim by a baseball franchise against stadium concessionaires without any reference to the baseball exemption.

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Granting private right of action to anyone who has been injured "by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws ..."

Establishing a four-year limitations period for antitrust claims