N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOHN EVER

E TT W ILLIAM S, III, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. NATIONAL FOOTB A LL LEAGUE; e t a l., De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-36016 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-01089-M JP M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington M arsha J. Pe c hm an, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 16, 2016 ** B e fore : LEAVY, B ER ZON, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. John Eve re tt W illia

m s, III, a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing his a

ntitrust a c tion a lle ging c la im s unde r the She rm an Ac t a nd the C la yt on Ac t. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w de novo a 

# FIL ED N OV 23 2016 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).distric t c o urt’ s dism issa l for fa ilure to sta te a c la im unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d ure 12(b)(6), a

nd we m ay

a ffirm on a ny ba sis supporte d by

the re c ord. Thompson v . Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d W illia

m s’ s c la im s unde r Se c tions 1 a nd 2 of the She rm an Ac t be c a use W illia

m s fa ile d to a lle ge a re le va n t produc t a

nd ge ogra phic m arke t, tha

t a ny a gre e m e nt be twe e n de fe nda nts ha d an a n ti-c om pe titive purpose or e ffe c t , a

n d fa ile d to a lle ge an atte m

pt to ga in c o ntrol in a

ny re le va nt m arke t. S

e e N e w c al Indus., Inc . v . Ik

on Offic e Solution , 513 F.3d 1038, 1045 n.4 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ Antitrust la w re quire s a lle gation of both a produc t m arke t a

nd a ge ogra phic m arke t.” ); Rutman W ineC o. v . E. & J

. Gallo W ine ry , 829 F.2d 729, 734, 736 (9th C ir. 1987) (se tting forth e l e m e nts of a c la i m unde r Se c tions 1 a

nd 2 of the She rm an Ac t). Dism issa l of W illia

m s’ s c la im

unde r the C la

yton Ac t wa s prope r be c a use W illia m s fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t the e ffe c t of the Se aha

wks’ tic ke t distribution polic

y wa s to le sse n c om

pe tition or to cre ate a

m onopoly . Se e FTC v . Anhe use r-Busc h, Inc ., 363 U.S. 536, 550 (1960) (Se c tion 2(a) of the C la yt on Ac t, “p rosc ribe s pric e diffe re nc e s . . . whe re the e ffe c t of the diffe re nc e s m ay be substa ntia l ly to le sse n c om

p e tition or tend to c re ate a m onopoly in a ny line of c om m e rc e , or to injure , de stroy , or pre ve n t c om pe t ition with a

ny pe rson who

1 4 - 3 6 0 1 6 2e ithe r grants or knowingly re c e ive s the be ne fit of the pric e diffe re ntia l, or with c ustom e rs of e ithe r of the m . ” (inte rna l c ita tions omi tte d)); C

hroma Lighting v
. GTE Prods. C

orp ., 111 F.3d 653, 655-657 (9th C ir. 1997) (theAc t prote c ts c om pe tition a nd individua

l c om pe titors). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in dism issing W illia

m s ’ s c om pla i nt without le ave to a

m e nd. Se e C

e rv ante s v . C ountryw ideHomeLoans, Inc . , 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th C ir. 2011) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd e xpla ining tha

t “ a distric t c ourt m ay

dism iss without le ave whe re a pla i ntiff’ s propose d am e ndm e n t s would fa il to c ure the ple a ding de fic ie nc ie s a n d am e ndm e nt would be futile ” ). W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e n ts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se e Padge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 3 6 0 1 6 3