Greencycle Paint, Inc. v. Paintcare, Inc.

Good Law
250 F. Supp. 3d 438·2017 WL 1330560·2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55314
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 11, 2017Case No. 15-cv-04059-MEJCalifornia9,146 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Mariajames, J.

*443 ORDER RE: SECOND MOTIONS TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff GreenCycle Paint, Inc. (“Plaintiff’) alleges Defendants PaintCare, Inc. (“PaintCare”); Clean Harbors . Environmental Services, Inc. (“Clean Harbors”); and Stericycle Environmental Solutions (“Stericycle”) (collectively, “Defendants”) violated California’s antitrust and unfair competition laws by conspiring to exclude Plaintiff from the recycled paint market. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs initial complaint but granted Plaintiff leave to amend on all claims, which Plaintiff has done. Order, Dkt. No. 47; see First Am. Compl. (“FAC”), Dkt. No. 48. Defendants now again move to dismiss all claims. Clean Harbors Mot., Dkt. No. 50; PaintCare Mot., Dkt. No. 51; Stericycle Mot., Dkt. No. 52. Plaintiff filed a single Opposition to Defendants’ Motions. Opp’n, Dkt. No. 57. Clean Harbors and PaintCare each filed a Reply (Clean Harbors Reply,- Dkt. No. 62; PaintCare Reply, Dkt. No. 63); Stericycle joins both Replies (Dkt. No. 65). Having considered the parties’ positions, the relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motions for the following…

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.