Opinion ID: 767553
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: application of the per se analysis

Text: 9 In its motion for summary judgment, PADI contended in essence that there was no evidence that it participated in any conspiracy. In its opposition, Performance argued only that PADI's agreement with Rodale was unlawful per se and made no claim that the agreement or any of PADI's conduct was subject to rule of reason analysis. As the district court put it, Throughout its papers on these motions Performance does not raise any claim the evidence shows an unreasonable restraint of trade under a rule of reason analysis.  As a result, it found that Performance abandoned any claim under the rule of reason and analyzed its claims under the per se test of S 1. 10 Performance does not dispute the district court's characterization but places responsibility for its failure to argue rule of reason analysis on PADI's failure to argue rule of reason in its motion for summary judgment. That motion was based on the absence of evidence of any illegal agreement or conspiracy. The burden was on Performance, if it sought to press a claim under the rule of reason, to come forward with evidence raising a triable issue under the rule of reason, i.e., evidence bearing on market power, injury to competition, and economic sense. See Adaptive Power Solutions v. Hughes Missile Sys., 141 F.3d 947, 951-52 (9th Cir. 1998). Having failed to do so in the district court, it cannot now attack the judgment on rule of reason grounds. See Image Technical Serv., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 903 F.2d 612, 615 n.1 (9th Cir 1990) (Appellants . . . argue that Kodak's conduct is illegal under a rule of reason analysis. We do not consider this argument because appellants failed to raise it in response to Kodak's motion forsummary judgment in the district court.); Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (The difficulty for Students, however, is that they failed to present this contention to the district court; it first appears in their opening brief on appeal. As a general rule, we will not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal.). Accordingly, the issue we review is whether Performance has raised a triable issue that PADI's conduct was a per se violation of the Sherman Act.