T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T I n r e : EBA Y SELLER A N TI TRU ST L I T I GA T I ON , M I CH A EL M A LO N E; A N N FA RM ER; T O D D V A N P E L T , i ndi vi dua l l y a nd on be ha l f of a l l othe r s s i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d, P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, a nd J E F F R E Y E NE B E L Y, P l ai nt i ff

, v. E B A Y , I N C ., D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 15642 D . C . N o . 5 : 0 7 -cv -0 1 8 8 2 -JF ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J e r e m y D . F oge l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 13, 2011 

# FI LED MA Y09 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: R E IN H A R D T , H A W K IN S , an d G O U L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P l ai nt i ff s, se vera l eB ayauct i on se l l er s ( “ P l ai nt i ff s” ), appeal the di stri ct c o u rt’s g r a n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f d e f e n d a n t e B a y , I n c . ( “e B a y ” ) in thi s put a t i ve c l a s s a c t i on a l l e gi ng m onopol i z a t i on a nd a tt e m pt e d m onopol i z a t i on of the onl i ne auc t i ons m a rke ta nd pe r s on- t o- pe r s on pa y m e nts y s t e m s unde r§ 2 of the S herm an A ctand sever al st at e l aw cl ai m s. P l ai nt i ff s argue thatthe di stri ctcourt e rr e d b y ( 1 ) c o n c lu d in g th a t P la in tif f s ’ e v id e n c e d id n o t s u f

f ic ie n tly d e m o n s tr a te c au s a l a n titru s t in

ju ry , a n d ( 2 ) f

a ilin g to c o n s id e ra n d g r a n t th e irR u le 5 6 ( f ) m o tio n . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f irm . 1 . T o survi ve sum m ary j ud gm ent , P l ai nt i ff s m ustcr ea t e agenu i ne i ss ue as t o w he the rthe y ha ve be e n “ i nj ur e d i n [ the i r ] bus i ne s s orpr ope rty by r e a s on of anythi ng forbi dd en i n the ant i trustl aw s. ” 15 U . S . C . § 1 5(a) . T hey m ustaddu ce e vi de nc e tha tthe y ha ve s uf f e r e d “ a nt i trus ti nj ury , w hi c h i s t o s a y i nj ury of the type the ant i trustl aw s w er e i nt ended t o p re ventand thatfl ow s f rom thatw hi ch m akes d e f e n d a n ts ’ a c ts u n la w f

u l.” B runsw i ck

C orp. v. P uebl o B ow l-O -M at , Inc. , 429 U .S . 4 7 7 , 4 8 9 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ; se e P h illip A r e e d a& H e rb e rt H o v e n k a m p , A nt i tr us t L aw ¶ 3 3 7 aa t 8 2

– 8 3 ( 2 d e d . 2 0 0 5 ) .W e n e e d n o t d e c id e w h e th e ro v e r c h a r g e in s e lle rf e e s is th e ap p r o p r ia te 1 m e a s ur e of

a nt i trus ti nj ury i n the c i r c um s t a nc e s of thi s c a s e , a nd m a ke no c om m e nt o n th e q u e s tio n . 3 P l a i n t i f f s , th r o u g h th e d e c l a r a t i o n s o f th e i re c o n o m i c s e x p e rt , o f f e r e d two e c onom e tr i c m ode l s s e e ki ng t o de m ons tr a t e a nt i trus ti nj ury a s m e a s ur e d by ov er char ge i n fee s: the do m i nantfi rm m od el of entrydet erre nce ( “ do m i nantfi rm 1 e n try m o d e l” ) a n d th e r e g r e s s io n m o d e l o f s e lle ro v e r c h a r g e ( “ta k e r a te m o d e l” ) . T he di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y f ou nd that , al tho ug h the do m i nantfi rm entrym od el w as of f e r e d a s athe or e t i c a l m e thod of s how i ng ove r c ha r ge , the m ode l w a s not im p le m e n te d , s o n o in f

e r e n c e s r e g a r d in g in

ju ry c a n r e a s o n ab ly b e d r a w n f r o m it re gardi ng ac tual i nj ury t o P l ai nt i ff s. W e f urther a gree w i th the di stri ctcourtthat th e ta k e r a te m o d e l is f

la w e d a n d d o e s n o t s h o w c au s a l in ju ry b e c au s e it i m prop er l y a do pt s e B ay ’ s “ t ake r at e” as a proxy for overchar ge and there fore do es notc onne c tthe a l l e ge dl y a nt i c om pe t i t i ve a c t s w i th the c ha r gi ng of s u p r a c o m p e titiv e f

e e s . 2 . T he or de rof

the di s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt i ng s um m a ry j udgm e ntdi d not addres s the R ul e 56(f) decl ar at i on , no r does the re cord di sc l ose w hether the di stri ct courtconsi dere d i tbefore rul i ng on sum m ary j ud gm ent . In general , “ [a ] di stri ct court ’ s dec i si on no tt o p erm i tfurther di sc ov ery [ pu rs uantt o a R ul e 56(f) decl ar at i on ] i s s ubj ec tt o revi ew for abu se of di sc re t i on . ” M ar gol is v . R y an , 1404

F . 3d 850, 853 ( 9th C i r . 1998) . “ H ow e ve r , ‘ i f the tr i a l j udge f

a i l s t o a ddr e s s the m ot i on before grant i ng sum m ary j ud gm ent , w e r evi ew thi s om i ss i on de no vo . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng Q ua l l

s v . B lue Cross of

C al . , Inc. , 2 2 F .3 d 8 3 9 , 8 4 4 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . E v e n o n d e n o v o r e v ie w , w e a r e s a tis f ie d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrin rul i ng on eB ay ’ s m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm entw i tho utdel ayfor f urther di s c ove ry . D e s pi t e ha vi ng f i l e d aR ul e 56( f

) de c l a r a t i on, P l a i nt i f

f s a c qui e s c e d t o a pr om ptdi s pos i t i on of

the m ot i on i n s e ve r a l w a y s . W he n e B a y s oughtt o de l a y the h eari n g o n i t s m o t i o n fo r su m m ary j u d g m en tan d P l ai n t i ffs’ m o t i o n fo r cl ass ce rt i fi ca t i on , P l ai nt i ff

s t ol d the di stri ctcourti n i t s opp osi t i on thatthey w er e “c o n f id e n t th a t th e C o u rt h a s a ll th e e v id e n c e a n d a r g u m e n t it n e e d s to c o n d u c t a r i gor ous a na l y s i s of

the i s s ue s ” a nd c r i t i c i z e d e B a y f ora tt e m pt i ng t o “ a voi d the m e r i t s pha s e of

thi s l i t i ga t i on. ” A boutone m onth be f or e the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s rul i ng on sum m ary j ud gm ent , P l ai nt i ff s r ec ei ved a subst ant i al am ou ntof the “ granul ar ” transac t i on al dat a they had request ed fr om eB ayand ref er ence d i n thei r R ul e 56(f) d e c la r a tio n , b u t th e y d id n o t a le rt th e d is tr ic t c o u rt o f th a t d e v e lo p m e n t, a tte m p t to s uppl e m e ntthe i rs um m a ry j udgm e nte vi de nc e , orothe rw i s e s e e k ade l a y i n the di s pos i t i on of

the m ot i on. A nd a f

t e rthe di s tr i c tc ourti s s ue d i t s or de rgr a nt i ng s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, P la in tif f s d id n o t m o v e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n . P l ai nt i ff s’ com m un i ca t i on s and cond uctm ayre as on abl y have l ed the di stri ctcourt5

t o b el i eve thateB ay ’ s m ot i on w as ri pe for a dj ud i ca t i on , and w e c on cl ud e that p lain ti ff s c an n o t n o w p re v ail o n ap p ea l b y a rg u in g th at th e d istrict co u rt’s s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t ru lin g w a s p r e m a tu r e . U n d e rth e s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , th e im p lic it deni al of P l ai nt i ff

s’ R ul e 56(f) m ot i on w as no tre vers i bl e e rr or. I n lig h t o f

th e f o r e g o in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s e n try o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a vorof e B a y on the s t a t e l a w a nd a tt e m pt e d m onopol i z a t i on of onl i ne pe r s on- t ope r s on pa y m e nts y s t e m s c l a i m s m us ta l s o be a f f i rm e d. W e ne e d nota ddr e s s the a lte rn a tiv e a r g u m e n ts r a is e d b y e B a y in its a n s w e r in g b r ie f . A FFI R M ED .