Plitt Amusement Company v. Act III Theatres, Inc. Act III Communications, Inc.

67 F.3d 308 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. PLITT AMUSEMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ACT III THEATRES, INC.; Act III Communications, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-35159. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 14, 1995. Decided Sept. 27, 1995. Before: SCHROEDER, REINHARDT, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Plitt Amusement Company appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of Act III Theatres, Inc. and Act III Communications, Inc., in Plitt's antitrust action which alleged that Act III monopolized first-run movie theaters in Portland, Oregon and Spokane, Washington in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2 , and Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 18 . We affirm. DISCUSSION 3 1. In order to establish a claim of monopolization under section 2 of the Sherman Act, a plaintiff must prove: "(1) [p]ossession of monopoly power in the relevant market; (2) willful…