Pharmarx Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. GE Healthcare, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Appellant PharmaRx Pharmaceutical, Inc. appeals the district court’s dismissal of its class action complaint alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-2 . We review the district court’s decision de novo, see Zadrozny v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 720 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir.2013), and we affirm.

Appellant’s claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act fails because it has not pleaded “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 , 127 S.Ct. 1955 , 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). As in Twombly , Appellant’s “bare” and “conclusory” allegation of an anticompeti-tive agreement is not entitled tó the presumption of truth. Id. at 565 n. 10, 127 S.Ct. 1955 . Appellant is unable to cure this defect by alleging that the anticompetitive agreement was a secret term of an otherwise public agreement. See William O. Gilley Enters., Inc. v. Atl. Richfield Co., 588 F.3d 659, 665 (9th Cir.2009) (per cu-riam). Even taking this as true, Appellant’s complaint still “does not answer the basic questions” about the relevant anti-competitive agreement: “who, did what, to whom (or with whom), where, and…