Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04332/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04332-20/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Petroleum, N.V. v. Graves, 709 F.2d 593, 595 (9th Cir. 1983). Furthermore, in deposition plaintiff

offered no more than a vague plan “in my head” to do some future advertising in Bay Area newspapers.

See generally Scarborough Decl., Ex. A (Reilly Dep.) at 180-183. Plaintiff therefore does not have

standing as a consumer of newspaper advertising space.

8

judgment on [plaintiff’s] Clayton Act . . . claim for equitable relief.” Id. For the foregoing reasons and

for good cause shown, the Court concludes that plaintiff has standing to assert his Clayton Act claims,

and DENIES defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04332-SI Document 166 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 1