Go-Video, Inc. v. Matsushita Holding Corp.

15 F.3d 1085 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. GO-VIDEO, INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MATSUSHITA HOLDING CORPORATION, Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Matsushita Acquisition Corporation, Defendants-Appellees, MCA, Inc., Defendant-Intervenor. No. 92-16847. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 3, 1993. Decided Jan. 6, 1994. MEMORANDUM * Before: ALARCON, LEAVY AND KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 We affirm the dismissal of Go-Video's antitrust challenge to Matsushita's acquisition of MCA. 2 The district court dismissed Go-Video's Sherman Antitrust claims and its Clayton Act claim under paragraph 46 of the complaint for failure to state a claim. The remaining claims for divestiture and damages under sections 4, 7, and 16 of the Clayton Act were dismissed for lack of standing. 3 On appeal, Go-Video's challenge to the district court's dismissal of its sections 1 and 2 Sherman Antitrust claims…