Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02174/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02174-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 07cv2174

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SHAMES; GARY

GRAMKOW, on behalf of themselves and

on behalf of all persons similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07-CV-2174 H (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT CTTC’S MOTION

FOR ENTRY OF FINAL

vs. JUDGMENT

THE HERTZ CORPORATION, a

Delaware corporation; DOLLAR

THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP,

INC., a Delaware corporation;

VANGUARD CAR RENTAL USA,

INC., an Oklahoma corporation;

ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR

COMPANY, a Missouri corporation;

FOX RENT A CAR, INC., a California

corporation; COAST LEASING CORP., a

Texas corporation; THE CALIFORNIA

TRAVEL AND TOURISM

COMMISSION,

Defendant.

On November 14, 2007, Plaintiffs Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow filed their

complaint against the above-named defendants. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiffs First Amended

Complaint was filed on May 1, 2008. (Doc. No. 85.) On July 24, 2008, the Court dismissed

all claims against Defendant California Travel and Tourism Commission (“CTTC”). (Doc. No.

107.) Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint asserts four causes of action: (1)price fixing in

violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1; (2) unfair competition in violation of the

Case 3:07-cv-02174-MMA-WMC Document 128 Filed 09/24/08 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 07cv2174

California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.; (3)

violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750

et seq.; and (4) violations of California’s Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, Cal. Govt. Code

§ 11120 et seq. Plaintiffs asserted each of these claims against all defendants, except that the

Bagley-Keene claim was brought against the CTTC alone.

On May 29, 2008, Defendant CTTC moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ first amended

complaint. (Doc. No. 94.) On July 24, 2008, the Court granted CTTC’s motion to dismiss as

to all claims against it. (Doc. No. 107.) In the same order, the Court also dismissed the state

law claims against the remaining Defendants. (Id.) The only pending claim in this case is

against the Rental Car Defendants for alleged violation of the Sherman Act.

Presently before the Court is the CTTC’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, filed

August 22, 2008. (Doc. No. 108.) Plaintiffs’ opposition was filed September 8, 2008. (Doc.

No. 120.) The CTTC filed its reply on September 15, 2008. (Doc. No. 125.) For the

following reasons, the Court grants the CTTC’s instant motion and enters final judgment in

its favor.

Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) allows a court to enter final judgment in favor

of a single party in a multi-party litigation as long as the court finds that there is “no just reason

for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). In determining whether action under Rule 54(b) is

appropriate, the Court should first determine whether it is in fact faced with a “final judgment.”

Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980). In this context, a “judgment”

is “a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief.” Id. That judgment is final if it is an

“ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.”

Id. (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 436 (1956)).

In its July 24, 2008 order, the Court made decisions upon several cognizable claims

against Defendant CTTC. These decisions are final because they dispose of the claims

asserted against the CTTC.

Having established that the situation meets the finality requirement of Curtiss-Wright,

Case 3:07-cv-02174-MMA-WMC Document 128 Filed 09/24/08 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 07cv2174

the Court must next determine “whether there is any just reason for delay” in granting final

judgment under Rule 54(b). Curtiss-Wright, 445 U.S. at 8. A court making this determination

should examine such factors as whether the claims under review are separable from the others

remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims already determined is such

that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once if there were

subsequent appeals. Id.

In this case, the Court concludes that there is no just reason for delay. The claims

dismissed as to the CTTC are adequately separable from the Sherman Act claim remaining

against the rental car company defendants. The Bagley-Keene Act claim was brought against

the CTTC alone. Its provisions do not apply to the conduct of the remaining Defendants. This

claim is therefore adequately separable from the pending claim against remaining Defendants.

With respect to the state claims under the UCL and the CLRA, all Defendants

successfully argued that they were immune under the California competition laws. The Court

held that Plaintiffs could not use the UCL to plead around the California Tourism Marketing

Act’s grant of legislative immunity from the California Unfair Practices Act. (Order Granting

Mot. to Dismiss 16.)

In contrast, the Court dismissed the Sherman Act claim against the CTTC because the

CTTC successfully invoked the state immunity doctrine set forth in Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S.

341, 350-51 (1943). Simply put, the Sherman Act did not intend to restrain state action. Id.

The Court followed the two prong test established in Cal. Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v.

Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97, 105 (1980). The Court determined that, as a state agency

acting in a non-sovereign capacity, the CTTC was required to meet the first prong of the

Midcal test, but not the second. The Court concluded that the CTTC passed this test because

its allegedly anticompetitive conduct was contemplated by the state and affirmatively

expressed in a state policy. See, Hass v. Oregon State Bar, 883 F.2d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir.

1989); Midcal, 455 U.S. at 105. The CTTC was therefore immune from any federal antitrust

liability.

The facts and legal issues involved in dismissing the Sherman Act claim against the

Case 3:07-cv-02174-MMA-WMC Document 128 Filed 09/24/08 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 07cv2174

CTTC were unique to that claim. The Court’s order explicitly stated that the “Rental Car

Defendants did not raise federal immunity arguments, so this conclusion applies only to the

CTTC.” (Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss 15.) As private companies, the remaining

Defendants cannot claim this state agency immunity. The Sherman Act claim against the

remaining Defendants centers around their dealings with each other and their customers – not

the CTTC. Even if there are subsequent appeals, the appellate court will not need to decide

the same issues more than once. See, Curtiss-Wright, 445 U.S. at 8. The Court therefore

concludes that the Sherman Act claim facing the remaining Defendants does not share enough

legal or factual elements to warrant a delay of final judgment with respect to the CTTC.

Conclusion

Final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) is appropriate where the

“matters disposed of by the partial summary judgments [are] sufficiently severable factually

and legally from the remaining matters, and they completely extinguished the liability” of the

movant. Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 819 F.2d 1519, 1525 (9th

Cir. 1987). Because the dismissed claims against the CTTC are adequately severable from the

Sherman Act claim against the remaining Defendants, the Court grants the CTTC’s motion and

enters final judgment in its favor on all claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 24, 2008

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:07-cv-02174-MMA-WMC Document 128 Filed 09/24/08 Page 4 of 4