Peter Harris v. Duty Free Shoppers Limited Partnership, Defendantappellee

Good Law
91 Daily Journal DAR 9439·940 F.2d 1272·1991 WL 143855·1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 17199·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6104
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 2, 199189-15952California1,873 words

Opinion

Opinion

Canby, J.

Peter Harris sued Duty Free Shoppers under section 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13 (c), and under the Cali fornia unfair competition statutes. The district court granted Duty Free’s motion for summary judgment. Harris appeals. In addition to challenging the merits of the district court’s ruling, Harris contends that the court erred by denying his application for further discovery prior to granting summary judgment.

We affirm the decision of the district court.

FACTS

Duty Free Shoppers operates a duty free store in downtown San Francisco which caters especially to Japanese tourists. Harris operates a competing store.

Duty Free pays lump sum amounts and commissions to tour companies and to tour guides to promote Duty Free’s downtown shop by scheduling stops of tour buses at the store, supplying Duty Free with advance information about the number and characteristics of the tour group that will be stopping at the store, distributing promotional materials to the tourists, assisting the tourists in ordering items, and explaining the regulations covering duty free merchandise to the tourists.

The tourists are not required to buy from Duty Free. They can and do…

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.