Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03836/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03836-46/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

On November 10, 2006, plaintiff, in addition to filing a document titled “Plaintiff’s

Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment,” filed a document titled “Motion for Contract

Interpretation,” which the Court construes as part of plaintiff’s opposition.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NSIGHT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PEOPLESOFT, INC.,

Defendant /

No. C 04-3836 MMC (MEJ)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION; DISMISSING

STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed October 27, 2006. Plaintiff has filed

opposition,1 to which defendant has replied. Having considered the papers filed in support

of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for resolution

without oral argument, VACATES the December 1, 2006 hearing, and rules as follows.

1. Defendant is entitled to judgment on the First Cause of Action, by which plaintiff

alleges a claim for unlawful restraint of trade in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1. Specifically, for

the reasons stated by defendant, plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue as to whether

defendant has engaged in “concerted conduct” with another to restrain trade. See Pinhas

v. Summit Health, Ltd., 894 F. 2d 1024, 1032-33 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding § 1 prohibits

Case 3:04-cv-03836-MMC Document 253 Filed 11/27/06 Page 1 of 3
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

“concerted conduct by more than one person or single entity”).

2. Defendant is entitled to judgment on the Third Cause of Action, by which plaintiff

alleges a claim for tying in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 14. Specifically, for the reasons stated

by defendant, plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendant conditioned

the sale of its software and/or software upgrades upon a buyer’s purchase of defendant’s

consulting or implementation services. See County of Tuolumne v. Sonora Community

Hospital, 236 F. 3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding “tying arrangement exists when a

seller conditions the sale of one product or service . . . on the buyer’s purchase of another

product or service”).

3. Defendant is entitled to judgment on the Fourth Cause of Action, by which plaintiff

alleges a claim for trade disparagement, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Specifically, for

the reasons stated by defendant, plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue as to whether

defendant made a false statement of fact about its services or about plaintiff’s services. 

See Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. Northern California Collection Service, Inc., 911 F. 2d

242, 244 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding claim for trade disparagement requires evidence

defendant made “false statement of fact” about its product or plaintiff’s product).

4. Plaintiff’s request, included in its opposition, that the Court reconsider its order of

August 5, 2005 dismissing the Second and Fifth Causes of Action will be denied. Plaintiff

has failed to comply with the Local Rules of this District, which require that a party seeking

reconsideration file a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and to show

therein a specific reason, such as the emergence of new material facts or a change in law,

why reconsideration is warranted. See Civil L.R. 7-9.

5. Plaintiff’s Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth, and

Fourteenth Causes of Action will be dismissed without prejudice. Such claims arise under

state law, and the Court’s jurisdiction over such claims is supplemental in nature. Where,

as here, a district court has granted summary judgment on each federal claim in an action,

the district court, pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), may properly decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. See Bryant v. Adventist Health

Case 3:04-cv-03836-MMC Document 253 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 3
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

System/West, 289 F. 3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2002).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above:

1. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED as to the First,

Third, and Fourth Causes of Action. In all other respects, defendant’s motion is DENIED

without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing the Second

and Fifth Causes of Action is hereby DENIED.

3. The Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth, and

Fourteenth Causes of Action are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff’s refiling

said claims in state court.

4. The Clerk shall close the file, and terminate any pending motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03836-MMC Document 253 Filed 11/27/06 Page 3 of 3