Plush Lounge Las Vegas LLC v. Hotspur Resorts Nevada Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Plush Lounge Las Vegas, LLC appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Hotspur Resorts Nevada, Inc. on Plush’s antitrust action under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Plush argues that the district court erred in granting Hotspur summary judgment on Plush’s Sherman Act claim. At summary judgment, an antitrust plaintiff asserting a claim under Sherman Act Section 2 must submit admissible evidence of the relevant product and geographic market that would be sufficient to sustain a jury verdict on the issue of market definition. Rebel Oil Co. v. Atl. Richfield Co., 51 F.3d 1421 , 1435 (9th Cir.1995) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Absent such evidence, summary judgment is appropriate. Rebel Oil, 51 F.3d at 1435.

Plush submitted the declarations of Roland Katavie and Jerrold S. Pressman in support of a proposed market definition of “cocktails and hors d’oeuvres in an entertainment atmosphere within the [Hotspur] Resort.” The district court ruled that neither Katavie nor Pressman qualified as an…