Glen Holly Entertainment Inc. v. Tektronix Inc.

ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR ' REHEARING EN BANC AND AMENDED OPINION

ORDER

The Opinion filed on September 9, 2003, and published at 343 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2003) is amended as follows:

Footnote 4 appearing on page 1013 is deleted and replaced by new footnote 4, which reads as follows:

With this amendment, the panel as constituted above has voted to deny the petition for rehearing, and to deny the petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it. Fed. R.App. P. 35(b).

The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en bane, are DENIED.

OPINION

Glen Holly Entertainment Inc. (“Digital Images”) brought this private antitrust action, with supplemental state law claims, against Tektronix Inc. (“Tektronix”) and Avid Technology, Inc. (“Avid”), collectively (“defendants”). Pursuant to defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the district court dismissed Digital Images’ antitrust and promissory estoppel claims, as well as some of its fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims. The court concluded that Digital Images lacked…