Sessions Tank Liners, Inc. v. Joor Manufacturing, Inc.
Opinion
Opinion
17 F.3d 295 62 USLW 2533 , 1994-1 Trade Cases P 70,520 SESSIONS TANK LINERS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOOR MANUFACTURING, INC., Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-55085. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 8, 1993. Decided Feb. 25, 1994. 1 Jerome I. Braun, Farella, Braun & Martel, San Francisco, California, and David E. Lundin, Rancho Santa Fe, California, for the defendant-appellant. 2 Maxwell M. Blecher, Blecher, Collins & Wienstein, Los Angeles, California, for the plaintiff-appellee. 3 Andrew D. Hutton, Michael J. Shockro, Latham & Watkins, Los Angeles, California, and Raymond A. Tabar, John G. Nelson, Thomson & Nelson, Whittier, California, for the amicus. 4 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 5 Before: CANBY, and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and TANNER * , District Judge. CANBY, Circuit Judge 6 Appellant Joor Manufacturing, Inc. ("Joor"), challenges the district court's decision holding Joor liable for anticompetitive conduct in violation of federal antitrust laws and for the California tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Through deliberate…
lead Opinion
Canby, J.
Appellant Joor Manufacturing, Inc. (“Joor”), challenges the district court’s decision holding Joor liable for anticompetitive conduct in violation of federal antitrust laws and for the California tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Through deliberate misrepresentation, Joor caused a prominent standard-setting organization to amend its influential model fire code to the disadvantage of Joor’s competitor, appellee Sessions Tank Liners, Inc. (“Sessions”).
Because Sessions has failed to prove that its injuries result from anything other than governmental action, we reverse the district court’s judgment on the antitrust claims. We also conclude that Joor is shielded from liability on the California commercial tort claim. We therefore reverse the district court’s judgment on that claim as well.
BACKGROUND
The parties in this case are commercial competitors. Joor is in the business of manufacturing steel tanks designed for the underground storage of hazardous fluids. Sessions repairs leaking storage tanks in place by cutting them open, lining their interiors with a protective coating of epoxy, and resealing them.
The cost of lining a tank is about…
dissent Opinion
Tanner, J.
dissenting.
I believe the district court properly applied the facts of this case to the law as set forth in Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc., 486 U.S. 492 , 108 S.Ct. 1931 , 100 L.Ed.2d 497 (1988), and has correctly concluded that Joor was not shielded by Noerr immunity. I dissent.