Tundra, Inc. v. Faire Wholesale, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TUNDRA, INC., Case No. 23-cv-02513-AMO
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND
10 FAIRE WHOLESALE, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 27 Defendant. 11
12 13 Defendant Faire Wholesale, Inc.’s (“Faire”) Motion to Dismiss the Complaint was heard 14 before this Court on December 7, 2023. This Order following the hearing assumes familiarity 15 with the facts of the case, the parties’ arguments, and the relevant legal standard on a motion to 16 dismiss. 17 “A threshold step in any antitrust case is to accurately define the relevant market, which 18 refers to ‘the area of effective competition.’” FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 969 F.3d 974, 992 (9th Cir. 19 2020) (quoting Ohio v. Am. Express Co. (“Amex”), 138 S. Ct. 2274, 2285, (2018)). “While 20 plaintiffs need not plead a relevant market with specificity, ‘[t]here are . . . some legal principles 21 that govern the definition of an antitrust “relevant market,” and a complaint may be dismissed 22 …