Case Name: AFMS LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; FedEx Corporation, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-21
Citations: 696 F. App'x 293
Docket Number: No. 15-55778
Parties: AFMS LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; FedEx Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 293–295

Head Matter:
AFMS LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; FedEx Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-55778
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 8, 2017 Pasadena, California
Filed August 21, 2017
Maxwell Michael Blecher, Esquire, Taylor C. Waginere, Blecher Collins Pepper-man & Joye, P.C., Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Paul Terry Friedman, Esquire, James Sigel, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA, Gregory Bryant Koltun, Morrison <⅞ Foerster LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Deanne Maynard, Counsel, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC, Defendant-Appellee United Parcel Service, Inc.
Kenneth P. Ewing, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, DC, Melissa Kimberly Hodges, Colleen Hitch Wilson, Senior Attorney, Richard R. Roberts, Ogletree, Dea-kins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Memphis, TN, for Defendant-Appellee FedEx Corporation
Before: REINHARDT, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
AFMS LLC ("AFMS") appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS") and FedEx Corporation ("FedEx") on AFMS' antitrust suit under § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Summary judgment in an antitrust case is appropriate where the plaintiff fails to define a cognizable market. See, e.g., Morgan, Strand, Wheeler & Biggs v. Radiology, Ltd., 924 F.2d 1484, 1489 (9th Cir. 1991). AFMS proffers two market definitions: a market for "shipping consultation services" and a market for "rate negotiation." AFMS has attempted to construct markets that include solely itself, other third party rate consultants, UPS, and FedEx. They cannot, however, explain their exclusion of in-house shipping advisors, the U.S. Postal Service, regional carriers, or other types of shipping consultants. Further, it is highly questionable whether UPS and FedEx are participants in the market for "rate negotiation." To establish antitrust standing, an antitrust-plaintiff must participate in "the same market as the alleged malefactors." Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1508 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., 772 F.2d 1467, 1470 (9th Cir. 1985)).
AFMS has failed to define a cognizable market or to show that both it and Appel-lees are participants in that market.
The district court's grant of summary judgment is
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
. It seems highly implausible that a shipping company, such as UPS or FedEx, could "negotiate" with itself about the rates it would charge shippers.