N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
AFM S LLC , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla nt,
v. UNITED PAR C E L SER

VIC E, INC .; FEDEX C OR POR

ATION, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-55778 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-05830- JGB
AJB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Je sus G. B e rna l, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 8, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R EINHAR

DT, TASHIM A, a

nd NGUYEN, C i rc uit Judge s. AFM S LLC (“ A FM S” ) a ppe a ls the grant of sum

m a ry judgm e nt in fa

vor of Appe l le e s Unite d Parc e l Se rvic e , Inc . (“ U PS” ) a nd Fe dEx C o rpora tion (“ Fe dEx” ) on AFM S’ antitrust suit unde r § 1 of the She rm a n Ac t, 15 U.S.C . § 1. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 

# F IL ED
AUG 21 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.Sum

m a ry judgm e nt in a

n a ntitrust c a se is a

ppropria te whe re the pla intiff fa ils to de fine a

c ogniz a ble m a rke t. S

e e , e .g. , Morgan, Strand, W he e l e r & Biggs v
. Radiology

, Ltd. , 924 F.2d 1484, 1489 (9th C ir. 1991). AFM S proffe rs two m a rke t de finitions: a

m a rke t for “ shipping c o nsulta t ion se rvic e s” and a

m a rke t for “ ra te
ne gotia tion.” AFM S ha s a tte m

pte d to c onstruc t

m a rke ts tha t inc lude sole ly

itse lf, othe r third pa

rty ra te c o nsulta

nts, UPS, a

nd Fe dEx. The y

c a nnot, howe v e r, e xpla in the i r e x c l usion of in-house shipping a dvisors, the U.S. Posta l Se rvic e , re giona l
c a rrie rs, or othe r ty

pe s of shipping c onsulta

nts. Furthe r, it is highly

que stiona

ble whe the r UPS a nd Fe d E x a re pa rtic i pa nts in them a

rke t for “ ra te ne gotia

t ion.” 1 To
e sta blish a n titrust sta

n d ing, a n a ntitrust pla

intiff m ust pa rtic ipate in “ the sa

m e
m a rke t a s the a lle ge d m a le fa c tors.” Amare l v . C o nne l l , 102 F.3d 1494, 1508 (9th C ir. 1996) (quoting Bhan v . N ME Hosps., Inc
. , 772 F.2d 1467, 1470 (9th C ir. 1985)). AFM S ha s fa ile d

to de fine a

c ogniz a ble m a rke t or to show tha

t both it a nd Appe l le e s a

re pa rtic ipa n ts in tha t m a rke t. The distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m a ry judgm e n t

is AFFIRM E D.

1 It se e m s highly

im pla usible tha t a shipping c om

pa ny , suc h a s UPS or Fe dEx, c ould “ ne gotia

te ” with itse lf a

bout the ra te s it would c ha rge shippe rs. 21

AFMS, LLC v. United Parcel Service Co. , 1 5
- 5 5778 NGUYEN, Circuit Judge, concurr ing in the result : T he market definitions that AFMS advances are cognizable for antitrust purposes . See Yellow Pages Cost Consultants, Inc. v. GTE Directories Corp. , 951 F.2d 1158 (9th Cir. 1991)
. However , AFMS failed to support i ts legal theories with sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. AFMS was not required, as the district court suggested , to provide expert t estimony regarding the relevant market. Cf. United States v. Pabst Brewing Co. , 384 U.S. 546, 549 (1966) (“ Certainly the failure of the Government to prove by an army of expert witness es what constitutes a relevant ‘ economic’ or ‘geographic’ market is not an adequate ground on which to dismiss a [Clayton A ct § 7 ] case. ”). T he district court was within its discretion , however, in excluding Stuart Brotman’s proffered expert testimony , s ee Fed
. R
. Evid
. 702 ; Jinro Am. Inc. v. Secure Invs

. , Inc. , 266 F.3d 993, 1001

– 04 (9th Cir. 2001) , and had no obligation to consider inadequately cited evidence in the voluminous record before it
. S ee Nilsson, Robbins, Dalgarn, Berliner, Carson & Wurst v. Louisiana Hydrolec , 854 F.2d 1538, 1545 (9th Cir. 1988)
. 

# FILED
AUG 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL SA M

F S, LLC v . Unite d Parc e l Se rv ic e

, Inc .; F e de x C orporation , No. 15-55778

R EINHAR

DT, C irc uit Judge , disse nting: I re spe c tfully

disa g re e . I a m

not pe rsua d e d tha

t pla intiff ha s fa i le d to ra ise a ge nuine i ssue of fa c t a s to the e xiste nc e of a m a rke t re ga

rding shipping c onsulta

tion
se rvic e s, ra te ne gotia

tions, a nd/or a c om bina tion of the two. Se e Ye l low Page s C ost C onsultants, Inc . v . GTE Dire c torie s C orp. , 951 F.2d 1158 (9th C ir. 1991); Te le c or C ommunic a tions, Inc . v . Sw . Be ll Te l. C o. , 305 F.3d 1124, 1129, 1131 (10th C ir. 2002). 

# FIL ED
AUG 21 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. C O URT O F APPEALS