Colonial Medical Group, Inc. v. Catholic Health Care West

Good Law
444 F. App'x 937
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 22, 201110-16490California625 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Colonial Medical Group (“Colonial”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of its antitrust claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Colonial sued Defendants-Appel-lees Mercy Hospital and Golden Empire Managed Care (“GEMCare”), alleging that their exclusive dealing arrangement -violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman AntiTrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-2 . The district court dismissed Colonial’s complaint on the grounds that it pled an underinclusive market. We affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Coal. for ICANN Transparency, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 611 F.3d 495, 501 (9th Cir.2010). “[A] plaintiffs obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 , 127 S.Ct. 1955 , 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act require a plaintiff to plead a relevant product market affected by the alleged anti-competitive conduct. See Allied Orthopedic Appliances Inc. v. Tyco…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.