N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT TRENDSETTAH USA, INC . a nd TR END SETTAH, INC .

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts / C rossAppe lle e s, v. SW ISHER

INTER NATIONAL, INC ., De fe nda n t-Appe l le e / C rossAppe lla nt. Nos. 16-56823; 16-56827 D.C . No. 8:14-c v-01664-JVS-DFM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Jam e s V. Se lna , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 16, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FLETC HER

and PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s, a nd GLEASON, ** Distric t

Judge . Following a

jury ve rdic t for Tre ndse tta

h USA, Inc . an d Tre nd Se tta h, Inc . (“ TSI” ) in TSI’ s an titrust a nd bre a c h of c ontra c t c a se a ga inst Swishe r Inte rnationa l,



# FIL ED FEB 08 2019 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 Honora

ble Sharon L. Gle a son, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ala ska , sitting by de signa tion.Inc . (“ Swishe r” ), the distric t c ourt gra nte d Swishe r’ s m o t ion for a ne w tria l a s to TSI’ s a n titrust c l a im s but not a s to TSI’ s c ontra c t c la im s. The distric t c ourt gran te d Swishe r judgm e nt a s a m atte r of la

w (“ JM O L” ) a s to TSI’ s m onopoliz ation c la im but not a s to TSI’ s atte m pte d m onopoliz ation c la im . Late r, following our de c ision in Ae rote c Inte rnational, Inc . v . Hone y w e ll Inte rnational, Inc . , 836 F.3d 1171 (9th C ir. 2016), thedistric t c ourt re c onside re d its e arlie r sum m ary judgm e nt orde r, this tim e granting Swisher sum m ary judgm e nt a s to TSI’ s a

ntitrust c la im s. 1 1. W e be gin our a

na l y s is with the distric t c ourt’ s re c onside ra t ion of sum m ary judgm e nt be c a

u se , we re we to a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s post-tria l grant of sum m a ry judgm e nt to Swishe r, we would not re a c h m a ny of the distric t c ourt’ s rulings on the

othe r issue s. 2 W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to re c onside r sum m ary judgm e nt for a

buse of disc re tion, a

nd we re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s sum m ary judgm e nt de te rm ination de novo. Se e S mith v . C lark C ty . Sc h. Dist. , 727 F.3d 950, 954–55 (9th C ir. 2013).

1 Swishe r prope rly

c ross-a ppe a le d a s to the distric t c ourt’ s a ntitrust rulings. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 28.1(c )(4); Sc hw artzmiller v . Gardne r , 752 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th C ir. 1984).

2 W e ne e d not de c ide whe the r the distric t c o urt e rre d in de ny ing Swishe r a ne w tria l a s to thebre a c h of c o ntra c t c la im s due to our disposition of othe r issue s a s se t forth in this m

e m orandum . 2The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in re c o nside ring sum m ary judgm e nt in light of Ae rote c ’ s holding tha t “ the re is only

a duty not to re fra in from de a ling whe re the only

c onc e iva ble rationa le or purpose is ‘ to sa c rific e short-te rm be ne fits in orde r to obta in highe r profits in the long run from

the e xc lusion of c om pe tition.’ ” 836 F.3d a

t 1184 (quoting Me troN

e t Se rv s . C orp. v . Qw e

st C orp. , 383 F.3d 1124, 1132 (9th C ir. 2004)). Ae rote c ’ s holding addre sse d a que stion of la w tha t Swishe r ha d ra ise d

prior to tria l re ga

rding wha

t c onstitute s antic om

pe titive c onduc t. Se e F.B.T. Prods., LLC v . Afte rmath Re c ords , 621 F.3d 958, 962–63 (9th C ir. 2010) (holding tha

t a c ourt m ay

re c onside r a

que stion of la

w tha t wa s ra ise d

“ at som e point be fore the judge subm itte d the c a s e to the jury ” whe re argum e nt doe s not re st on thesuffic ie n c y of the e vide n c e ); se e also W illiams v . Gay e , 895 F.3d 1106, 1122 (9th C ir. 2018) (disc ussing Ortiz v . J ordan , 562 U.S. 180 (2011)). Howe v e r, in re c onside ring sum m ary judgm e n t, the distric t c ourt fa ile d to drawa ll re a sona

b le infe re nc e s in fa

vor of TSI, the nonm o ving pa rty . To the c ontra ry , the distric t c ourt c ite d e vide nc e tha t Swishe r ha d introduc e d at tria l to support its a sse rtion tha

t it ha d le gitim ate busine ss re a sons for its c onduc t. B ut in re nde ring its verdic t, the jury c l e arly ha d re j e c te d this e vide n c e . Se e Re e v e s v . Sande rson Plumbing Prods., Inc. , 530 U.S. 133, 151 (2000) (“ [A] lthough the c ourt should re vie w the re c ord a s a whole , it m u st disre ga

rd a l l e vide nc e favora

ble to the 3m oving pa

rty tha t the jury is not re quire d to be lie ve .” ). The re fore , the distric t c ourt’ s post-tria l gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e n t to Swishe r on the antitrust c la im s m ust be re ve rse d. 2. W e turn the n to thejury instruc tion issue , whic h form e d the ba sis of the tria l c ourt’ s gra

nting of a ne w tria l on theatte m

pte d m onopoliz ation c la im . Swishe r a de quate ly

pre se rve d its obje c tion to the tria l c ourt’ s fa ilure to give Swishe r’ s propose d Jury

Instruc tion 29. Se e Hunte r v . C ty . of Sac rame nto , 652 F.3d 1225, 1230–31 (9th C i r. 2011). Swishe r’ s “ c l a im of e rror re lat ing to thejury instruc tions, pre s e rve d

by wa y of obje c tion a

t tria l , is subje c t to ha

rm le ss-e rror ana ly sis.” U

nite d State

s v . De J arne tte , 741 F.3d 971, 983 (9th C ir. 2013). Howe ve r, on the m e rits, we hold tha t the jury instruc tion tha

t wa s give n

a de quate l y and a c c urate ly instruc te d the jury on the a pplic a ble la w. Although the

pre c ise wording of the propose d instruc tion wa s diffe re nt, the princ iple in the instruc tion that wa s give n is thesa

m e : in orde r for Swishe r to ha ve viola t e d the antitrust la

ws, its only purpose m

ust ha ve be e n to ha

rm TSI. 3 The re fore , the distric t c ourt e rre d in gran ting a ne w tria l a s to the atte m

pte d m o nopoliz ation c la im .

3 Jury Instruc tion 29, whic h wa s give n, sta te s in re le va

nt pa rt: “ Thus, if Swishe r’ s c onduc t ha

rm e d TSI’ s inde p e nde nt inte re sts a nd m a de se nse only

to m a inta in m onopoly

powe r, it wa s not ba se d on le gitim ate busine ss purpose s.” C f. Ae rote c , 836 F.3d a

t 1184. 43. W e turn ne x t to thedistric t c o urt’ s JM OL rulings. The distric t c ourt e rre d in gra nting JM OL to Swishe r a s to TSI’ s m onopoliz ation c la im be c a use the jury c ould a gre e with Swishe r’ s e xpe rt tha t the re le va

nt m arke t wa s na

tiona l, a nd a gre e with TSI’ s e xpe rt tha

t Swishe r wa s lia

ble for nationa l da

m a ge s. Se e Zhang v . Am. Ge m Se afoods, Inc . , 339 F.3d 1020, 1038 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ W e m ust a c c e pt a

ny re a s ona ble inte rpre tation of thejury ’ s a c tions, re c onc iling thejury ’ s findings ‘ by e xe ge sis if ne c e ssa

ry [.] ’ ” (quoting Gallic k

v . Baltimore & Ohio R.R. C o. , 372 U.S. 108, 119 (1963))). The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing Swishe r’ s JM OL m otion a s to atte m pte d m onopoliz ation be c a use “ a re a sona ble jury c ould find tha

t Swishe r atte m pte d to m onopoliz e a

nat iona l m arke t, but wa s suc c e ssful in m onopoliz ing only som e re giona l m arke ts.” Se e Estate of Diaz v . C

i ty of Anahe im , 840 F.3d 592, 604 (9th C i r. 2016) (“ The te st is whe the r ‘ the e vide n c e , c onstrue d in the light m ost favora ble to the nonm oving pa

rty , pe rm i ts only

one re a s ona

ble c onc l usion, a

nd tha t c onc lusion is c ontra

ry to tha t of the jury . ’ ” (quoting W h itev . Ford Motor C

o. , 312 F.3d 998, 1010 (9th C ir. 2002), opinion amende d on de nial of reh’g , 335 F.3d 833 (9th C ir. 2003))), c e rt. de nie d sub nom. C i ty of Anahe im, C

al. v . Estate

of Diaz , 137 S. C t. 2098 (2017).

5The distric t c ourt a l so prope rly re je c te d Swishe r’ s a sse rtion in its JM OL m otion tha

t TSI ha d fa ile d to show a ntitrust injury . “ Swishe r fa ile d to re but” TSI’ s e vide nc e tha

t “ Swishe r fa i le d to tim e ly de live r a p proxim ate ly

200 m illion c iga rillos unde r the priva

te la be l a gre e m e nts.” The distric t c ourt c orre c tly he ld tha t

“ a re a sona

ble jury c ould find tha

t the re stric t e d m arke t output for c i ga rillos ha rm e d c om pe tition.” Se e Ohio v . Am. Ex pre ss C o. , 138 S. C t . 2274, 2288 (2018) (“ [W e ]

‘ w ill not infer c om

pe titiveinjury

from pric e and output da

ta a bse nt somee v ide nc e that te nds to provetha

t output wa s re stric te d or pric e s we re a b ove a c o m pe titive le ve l.’ ” (e m

pha sis a dde d) (quoting Brook e Group Ltd. v . Brow n & W illiamson Tobac c o C

orp. , 509 U.S. 209, 237 (1993))).

6W e hold a s follows: the distric t c o urt’ s de c ision to re c onside r its sum m ary judgm e nt ruling is A FFIRM E D . The distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to Swishe r a s to its a

ntitrust c la im s is RE V E R SE D . The distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of a ne w tria l to Swishe r a s to the atte m pte d m onopoliz ation c la im is RE V E RSE D . The distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of JM OL to Swishe r a s to them onopoliz ation c la im is RE V E RSE D . The distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of JM OL to Swishe r a s to theatte m pte d m onopoliz ation c la im

is AFFIRM E D . On re m and, the distric t c o urt is dire c te d to re insta te the jury ’ s ve rdic t

in its e ntire ty . W e award c osts to TSI. Se e Fe d . R . App. P. 39(a )(4). AFFIRM E D IN PART , RE V E RSE D IN PART , AND RE M ANDE D .

7