International Technologies Consultants, Inc. v. Pilkington PLC

Good Law
137 F.3d 1382·98 Daily Journal DAR 2255·1998 WL 95352·1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 3874·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1602
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 6, 1998No. 94-17143California5,965 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kleinfeld, J.

International Technologies has been engaged for some time in attempts to participate in the plate glass industry, dominated by Pilkington and its licensees, including Guardian. An earlier pair of lawsuits between International Technologies and Guardian resulted in a consent decree. The issue before us is whether the consent decree barred this new lawsuit.

FACTS

The district court granted judgment on the pleadings, so no evidence has been presented and no findings have been made. We do not know whether the facts set out below are true. They are a summary of what the unsuccessful plaintiff pleaded. The appellate task in reviewing dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is to determine whether, if the facts were as pleaded, they would entitle the plaintiff to a remedy. See Merchants Home Delivery Serv., Inc. v. Hall & Co., 50 F.3d 1486 , 1488 (9th Cir.1995).

International Technologies Consultants (“ITC”) has been trying for years to get into the engineering and consulting end of the plate glass business. It has been thwarted by Pilkington and its licensees. ITC claims that the means by which Pilkington and its licensees have thwarted its participation in the…

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.