Mgl Distributing v. Dfc Ceramics, Inc.

68 F.3d 480 1995-2 Trade Cases P 71,182 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. MGL DISTRIBUTING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DFC CERAMICS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-15172. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 14, 1995. Decided Oct. 10, 1995. 1 Before: KOZINSKI and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges, and SILVER, * District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 For approximately five years, MGL distributed DFC's gold assaying products in Nevada. DFC terminated the distributorship in 1989. MGL's antitrust claims are based on the injury it allegedly suffered from this termination. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. 4 To survive summary judgment, an antitrust plaintiff must raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether it suffered what is known as an "antitrust injury." See Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328, 334 (1990). This type of injury results from the anti-competitive effect of the action complained of. Id. Where…