N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DAW INDUSTR IES, INC ., a

C a l ifornia c orporation, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. HANGER

OR THOPEDIC GR OUP, INC ., De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 11-56858 D.C . No. 3:06-c v-01222-JAH-NLS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. Houston, Distric

t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 4, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON a

nd B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd AM ON, C hie f Distric t Judge . ** 

# FIL ED FEB 24 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble C arol B a gle y

Am on, C h ie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of Ne wYork, sitting by de signa tion.DAW Industrie s (“ DAW ” ) a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt on its c la i m s tha t Ha n ge r Orthope dic Group (“ Hange r” ) viola t e d C a lifornia ’ s C artwright Ac t by c onspiring to re stra in tra de in the m arke t for prosthe tic m ic roproc e ssor kne e s a nd to a tte m pt to m o nopoliz e tha

t m arke t , C a l. B us. & Prof. C ode § 16726; tha t Ha nge r e nga ge d in unfa ir busine ss pra c tic e s, C a l. B us. & Prof. C ode § 17200; a nd tha t Ha nge r c om m itte d tra de libe l unde r C a lifornia la w. W e a ffirm

on a ll c ounts. I. To m ake out a

c la i m for c onspira c y

in re stra int of tra de unde r the C artwright Ac t, DAW

m ust provetha

t Ha nge r or its a lle ge d c o-c o n spira tors a c te d in re stra int of tra de , am ong othe r e le m e nts. Se eQue l imane C o. v . Ste w art Title Guar. C o. , 960 P.2d 513, 525 (C a l. 1998). M a lic ious a c tion a ga inst a c o m pe titor with no a dve rse e ffe c t on c om pe tition is not a

c tiona ble unde r the C a

rtwright Ac t.

“ It is we ll a c c e pte d tha

t ‘ the antitrust la

ws . . . we re e na c te d for the prote c tion of c om pe tition not c om

pe titors.’ . . . Injury

to a c o m pe titor is not e quiva le nt to injury to c o m pe tition; only

the latte r is the prope r foc us of a ntitrust la ws.” Marsh v . Ane sthe s ia Se rv . Me d. Grp., Inc . , 200 C a l. App. 4th 480, 495 (Ct. App. 2011) (first e llipse s in original) (som e inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d) (quoting C e l-Te c h C ommc ’ns, Inc . v . Los Ange le s C e llular Te l. C

o. , 973 P.2d 527, 544 (C a l. 1999)).

2He re , DAW provide s no e vide nc e whate v e r, e xpe rt or othe rwise , tha t Hange r or its a lle ge d c o-c onspira tors a dve rse l y a ffe c te d c om pe tition in the

re le va nt m arke t. And wha

t littleane c dota l e vide nc e the re c ord c onta ins c uts a ga inst DAW : In the y e ars tha

t Ha nge r purporte dly

a c te d pursua

nt to its a ntic om pe titive c onspira c y , se ve ra l ne w prosthe tic m ic roproc e ssor kne e s e nte re d the Unite d Stat e s m arke t. Tha

t e vide nc e sugge sts tha

t c om pe t ition re m a ine d robust, notwithsta nding any dam a ge to DAW ’ s sa le s . DAW ’ s c la im

tha t Ha nge r c onspire d in a

n atte m pt to m onopoliz e the m arke t in prosthe tic m ic roproc e ssor kne e s fa ils for thesa m e re a son a s its c om

pla int of c onspira c y

in re stra int of tra de . A c onspira c y to m onopoliz e is unla

wful unde r the C artwright Ac t only

if the c onspira c y

ha s a “ da nge rous proba

b ility of obta ining a m onopoly

. . . . ” Ex

x on C orp. v . Supe rior C

ourt , 51 C a l. App. 4th 1672, 1687 (C t. App. 1997) (c iting, inter a lia , Spe c trum Sports, Inc . v . Mc Quillan , 506 U.S. 447, 454–58 (1993)). Esta

blishing such

a da nge rous proba

b ility of suc c e ss “ re quire s inquiry into there le v ant produc t a nd ge ogra phic m a rke t a nd the de fe n da

nt’ s e c onom ic powe r in tha

t m arke t.” Spe c t

rum Sports , 506 U.S. a

t 459. B ut DAW offe rs no e v ide nc e at a ll a s to e a c h c om pe titor’ s sha

re of the m arke t for prosthe tic m ic roproc e ssor kne e s. One of Ha nge r’ s e xpe rts disc usse d

data c onc e rning the m arke t for low e r

e x t re mity prosthe se s in the Unite d

State s ge n e ra lly

— a c ate gory 3whic h inc lude s a ll a bove -the -kne e and be low-the -kne e prosthe se s, not just a rtific ia l kne e s a nd not just m

ic roproc e ssor prosthe se s. Thosesta tistic s thus te ll us nothing of the re le va

nt m arke t. For the se re a sons, we a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt a ga inst DAW

on its C artwright Ac t c la i m s. II. DAW c onc e de s tha

t its unfair busine ss pra c tic e s c la im is pre m ise d on its antitrust c la im . Se eC

e l-Te c h C ommc ’ns , 973 P.2d a

t 539–40. Thec la i m

thus fa lls a longsideDAW ’ s a

ntitrust c la im s. III. A tra de libe l c la im

unde r C a lifornia

la w re quire s proof of spe c i a l dam a ge s, a

m o n g othe r e le m e nts. Ae tna C as. & Sur. C

o. v . C e nte nnial Ins. C

o. , 838 F.2d 346, 351 (9th C ir. 1988) (a pply ing C a lifornia

la w); Gue s s, Inc . v . Supe rior C

ourt , 176 C a l. App. 3d 473, 479 (Ct. App. 1986). To preva il, a pla intiff

“ m ay not re ly on a ge ne ra l de c line in busine ss a rising from

the [a lle ge d] fa lse hood, and m ust inste a d ide ntify

pa rtic ula r c ustom e rs a

nd tra n s a c tions of whic h it wa s de prive d a s a

re sult of thelibe l.” Mann v . Quality Old Time Se rv ., Inc . , 120 C a l. App. 4th 90, 109 (C t. App. 2004); ac c o rd Erlic h v . Etne r , 224 C a l. App. 2d 69, 75 (C t. App. 1964). He re , DAW

ha s not spe c ific a lly

ide ntifie d any

lost sa le s tra c e a

ble to the a lle ge d fa lse hood. It m a inta ins tha t it ne e d not do so on a m otion for sum m ary 4judgm e nt, a

rguing tha

t we should infer that, a s sa le s of e xpe nsive , sophistic ate d prosthe se s a

re tra c e a ble , DAW

will bea ble to supply

the ne c e s sa

ry e vide nc e at tria l tha t DAW ’ s de c line in sa le s wa s c a use d by Ha nge r’ s a lle g e d

fa lse hood. DAW is e ntitle d to no suc h infe re nc e of c a usation. “A pa

rty opposing a

m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt sim

ply c a nnot m ake a

se c re t of his e vide nc e until the tria l, for in doing so he

risks thepossibility

tha t the re will beno tria l.” W alk e r v . Hoffman , 583 F.2d 1073, 1075 (9th C ir. 1978) (pe r c uriam ). He re , too, we a ffirm ; the distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt on DAW ’ s tra de libe l c la im . AFFIRM E D.

5