Fisherman's Wharf Bay Cruise Corp. v. Superior Court

Good Law
114 Cal. App. 4th 309·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1855·2003 Daily Journal DAR 13613·7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 628·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10782
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 15, 2003A101652California13,198 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ruvolo, J.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Fisherman’s Wharf Bay Cruise Corporation, doing business as Red and White Fleet (Red and White), competes against its sole and dominant competitor, real party in interest Blue and Gold Fleet, Inc. and affiliated entities (collectively, Blue & Gold), in providing regularly scheduled sightseeing tours on San Francisco Bay (bay cruises). Red and White filed an antitrust lawsuit against Blue & Gold, alleging six causes of action based on California’s Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16700 et seq.) and the Unfair Practices Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq. ) (UPA). The trial court granted Blue & Gold’s motion for summary adjudication and dismissed most of these causes of action. Red and White petitioned this court for a writ of mandate seeking to compel the trial court to vacate its summary adjudication order and to enter an order denying the motion for summary adjudication.

We affirm in part and reverse in part. We first conclude that Red and White could predicate its causes of action alleging predatory pricing (§ 17043 of the UPA) and the offering of “secret rebates and privileges” (§ 17045 of the UPA) based on Blue & Gold’s below-cost…

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.