Court Opinion

ID: 9465199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:38:43.085205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:01.744369
License: Public Domain

CHOY, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the majority opinion. However, I must make one observation about the extent of proof necessary to establish an attempt to monopolize claim. I agree with my Brothers that three elements are necessary for a prima facie claim: (1) specific intent to control prices or destroy competition with respect to a part of commerce, (2) predatory or anticompetitive conduct directed to accomplishing the unlawful purpose, and (3) a dangerous probability of success. We have so held in Janich Bros., Inc. v. American Distilling Co., 570 F.2d 848, 853 (9th Cir. 1977), and Marquis v. Chrysler Corp., 577 F.2d 624, 641 (9th Cir. 1978).1
But in Greyhound Computer Corp. v. International Business Machines, 559 F.2d 488, 504 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1040, 98 S.Ct. 782, 56 L.Ed.2d 790 (1978), we held that only two elements were necessary. We stated that “[a] prima facie case of attempt to monopolize is made out by evidence of a specific intent to monopolize ‘any part’ of commerce [element (1)], plus anticompetitive conduct directed to the accomplishment of that unlawful purpose [element (2)].” Id.
However, by holding that Crestmark’s actions were neither predatory nor anticom-petitive, we need not inquire into what additional element or elements would be necessary for a successful claim.

. I also agree that this Circuit recognizes a “short-cut method” of establishing liability by inferences drawn from proof of predatory or anticompetitive conduct which constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade. See Janich Bros., 570 F.2d at 854.