Page 1 – NOTICE OF APPEAL

 

Joseph M. Alioto, SBN #42680, 

Admitted Pro hac vice 

jmalioto@aliotolaw.com 

ALIOTO LAW FIRM

One Sansome Street, 35th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 434-8900 

Facsimile: (415) 434-9200 

Christopher L. Cauble, OSB No. 962374 

ccauble@thecaublefirm.com 

Rachele R. Selvig, OSB No. 095016 

rselvig@thecaublefirm.com 

CAUBLE, CAUBLE & SELVIG, LLP 

111 SE Sixth Street 

Grants Pass, OR 97526 

Telephone: (541) 476-8825 

Facsimile: (541) 471-1704 

[See additional attorneys listed on signature page]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MEDFORD DIVISION 

JAMES DEHOOG, et al.; 

 

Plaintiffs; 

v. 

ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV, SA/NV and 

SABMILLER PLC; 

 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:15-cv-02250-CL 

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Judge Ann L. Aiken 

 

Case 1:15-cv-02250-CL Document 114 Filed 11/02/16 Page 1 of 8
Page 2 – NOTICE OF APPEAL

 

Notice is hereby given under Fed. R. App. P. 3 that all Plaintiffs, JAMES DEHOOG, 

BRIAN BOUTELLER, SHONNA BOUTELLER, CARLY BOWEN, TOM BUTTERBAUGH, 

ERICA I. CORONA, MARIA G. CORONA, CHRIS DENNETT, JOHN DESBIENS, 

MATTHEW JOHNSON, CYNTHIA A. KREITZBERG, EDWARD LAWRENCE, JERUSHA 

MALAER, ROBERT MALAER, MICHAEL MARTIN, MICHAEL MCATEE, DAVID 

MILLIGAN, JEFF REEDER, RALPH REEDER, WADE SCAGLIONE, BETH H. SILVERS, 

BRADLEY O. SILVERS and PATRICE WADE, hereby appeal to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the final Order and Judgment of the United States District 

Court for the District of Oregon, granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, and adopting the 

Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, dated October 3, 2016. (Dkt. Nos. 112 

and 113). 

 

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2016.

ALIOTO LAW FIRM

 

/s/ Joseph M. Alioto 

Joseph M. Alioto, SBN #42680, Pro hac vice

 jmalioto@aliotolaw.com

CAUBLE, CAUBLE & SELVIG, LLP 

 Christopher L. Cauble, OSB No. 962374 

ccauble@thecaublefirm.com 

 Rachele R. Selvig, OSB No. 095016 

rselvig@thecaublefirm.com 

 

 MESSINA LAW FIRM, P.C.

 Gil D. Messina, NJ #029661978, Pro hac vice 

 gmessina@messinalawfirm.com 

 961 Holmdel Road 

 Holmdel, NJ 07733 

 732-332-9300 Phone/732-332-9301 Fax 

Case 1:15-cv-02250-CL Document 114 Filed 11/02/16 Page 2 of 8
Page 3 – NOTICE OF APPEAL

 

 

SEVERAID & GLAHN, P.C. 

 Ronald H. Severaid, SBN #78923, Pro hac vice

 rhseveraid@sbcglobal.net 

 Carter Glahn, SBN #242378, Pro hac vice 

 sandglaw-mail@yahoo.com 

 1787 Tribute Rd., Suite D 

 Sacramento, CA 95815 

 916-929-8383 Phone/916-925-4763 Fax 

 

 LAW OFFICES OF JEFFERY K. PERKINS 

 Jeffery K. Perkins, SBN #57996, Pro hac vice pending

 jefferykperkins@aol.com 

 1550-G Tiburon Blvd., #344 

 Tiburon, CA 94920 

 415-302-1115 Phone/415-435-4053 Fax 

 LARSON O’BRIEN LLP 

 Steven A. Haskins, CSB #238865, Pro hac vice 

 Stephen G. Larson, CSB #145225, Pro hac vice

 shaskins@larsonobrienlaw.com 

 slarson@larsonobrienlaw.com 

 555 South Flower Street 

 Los Angeles, CA 90071 

 212-436-4888 Phone/213-323-2000 Fax 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 1:15-cv-02250-CL Document 114 Filed 11/02/16 Page 3 of 8
Page 4 – NOTICE OF APPEAL

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing was served electronically via the Court’s 

electronic filing system on the 2nd day of November, 2016, according to this Court’s provision for 

service and sent to the following counsel of record indicated below: 

Michael G. Hanlon 

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL G. HANLON, P.C. 

101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 825 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tel: 503-228-9787 

Fax: 503-224-4200 

mgh@hanlonlaw.com 

J. Robert Robertson (Pro hac vice) 

Benjamin F. Holt (Pro hac vice) 

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 

555 Thirteenth St, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Tel: 202-637-5774 

Fax: 202-637-5910 

robby.robertson@hoganlovells.com 

benjamin.holt@hoganlovells.com 

Attorneys for SABMILLER plc 

J . Matthew Donohue 

Shannon L. Armstrong 

MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC 

1211 SW Fifth Ave, Suite 3000 

Portland OR 97204-3730 

mattdonohue@markowitzherbold.com 

shannonarmstrong@mhgm.com 

Tel: 503-295-3085 

Fax: 503-323-9105 

Lillian S. Grossbard (Pro hac vice )

Yonatan Even (Pro hac vice ) 

Greg C. Cheyne (Pro hac vice )

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE, LLP 

Worldwide Plaza 

825 Eighth Avenue 

New York, NY 10019-7475 

lgrossbard@cracath.com 

yeven@cravath.com 

gcheyne@cravath.com 

Tel: 212-474-1000 

Fax: 212-474-3700 

Attorneys for Defendant Anheuser-Busch 

InBev, SA/NV 

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2016. 

 

ALIOTO LAW FIRM

 

/s/ Joseph M. Alioto 

Joseph M. Alioto, SBN #42680, Pro hac vice

 jmalioto@aliotolaw.com

 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 1:15-cv-02250-CL Document 114 Filed 11/02/16 Page 4 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MEDFORD DIVISION 

JAMES DEHOOG, ET AL., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV, SA/NV; 

SABMILLER, PLC, 

Defendants. 

AIKEN, District Judge: 

1:15-cv-02250-CL 

ORDER 

On July 22, 2016, Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a 

Findings and Recommendation (#102), and the matter is now before 

this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (b). 

Plaintiffs have filed Objections (#106), Defendants have responded 

to Plaintiffs' Objections (##108, 109) and I have reviewed the 

file of this case de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1); McDonnell 

1 - ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-02250-CL Document 112 Filed 10/03/16 Page 1 of 3 Case 1:15-cv-02250-CL Document 114 Filed 11/02/16 Page 5 of 8
Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 

(9th Cir. 1981). 

I have given this matter de nova review. I find no error. 

Accordingly, I ADOPT the Findings and Recommendation. Defendants' 

Motions to Dismiss (##41, 43) are GRANTED. 

I turn then to the question of amendment. Dismissal without 

leave to amend is appropriate where amendment would be futile. 

Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002). 

After reviewing the Complaint, briefing, and the exhibits 

submitted by both parties, I conclude that any amendment would be 

futile, particularly in light of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in a 

factually-similar case, Edstrom v. Anheuser-Busch InBev, 647 F. 

App'x 733 (9th Cir. 2016). In Edstrom, the court held that "[t]o 

establish a prima facie case, a Section 7 plaintiff generally must 

show that the challenged transaction would increase the 

concentration of firms in the relevant market." Id. at 735. The 

Ninth Circuit noted that the challenged transaction in Edstrom did 

not "increase ABI's market share or the concentration of the U.S. 

beer market," and found that the plaintiffs "failed to plausibly 

allege that the challenged transaction is anti-competitive." Id. 

Plaintiffs in this case, like those in Edstrom, cannot 

plausibly allege that the challenged transaction will increase 

either ABI's market share or the concentration of firms in the 

U.S. beer market. Aside from the complete divestiture of SAB's 

interest in MillerCoors, which was discussed at length by Judge 

2 - ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-02250-CL Document 112 Filed 10/03/16 Page 2 of 3 Case 1:15-cv-02250-CL Document 114 Filed 11/02/16 Page 6 of 8
Clarke, Plaintiffs' own exhibits show that the Department of 

Justice has reached a settlement with ABI and SAB which will 

prevent increased concentration in the U.S. beer industry. Alioto 

Deel. Ex. B, at 1. 

Accordingly, dismissal shall be with prejudice. Any 

outstanding 

It is so 

motions 

ORDERED 

are 

and 

DENIED 

DATED 

as 

this 

moot~OlD 

~day of 

~ 

Sept9mse~, 2016. 

ANN AIKEN 

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

3 - ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-02250-CL Document 112 Filed 10/03/16 Page 3 of 3 Case 1:15-cv-02250-CL Document 114 Filed 11/02/16 Page 7 of 8
l 

i 

~' 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

JAMES DEHOOG, ET Al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV, 

SA/NV; SABMILLER, PLC, 

Defendants. 

AIKEN, District Judge: 

MEDFORD DIVISION 

1:15-cv-02250-CL 

JUDGMENT 

For the reasons set forth in the Findings and Recommendation 

of Magistrate Judge Clarke (#102) and my accompanying Order, 

Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (##41, 43) are GRANTED. This case 

is dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

{)cfo1rvtDATED this day of.~' 2016. 

ANN AIKEN 

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

1 - JUDGMENT 

Case 1:15-cv-02250-CL Document 113 Filed 10/03/16 Page 1 of 1 Case 1:15-cv-02250-CL Document 114 Filed 11/02/16 Page 8 of 8