Opinion

In Re Airport Car Rental Antitrust Litigation. Trans Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. The Hertz Corporation

  • 766 F.2d 1292
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed
Oct 7, 1985
Status
Published
Author
Beezer
On the bench
Beezer, Choy, Farris
Cited by
7 cases
Authority
More cited than 25.4%

affirming district court’s grant of summary judgment on behalf of private defendants despite allegations of price fixing, misrepresentation, bribery and coercion

How later courts described this case

  • affirming district court’s grant of summary judgment on behalf of private defendants despite allegations of price fixing, misrepresentation, bribery and coercion

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

BEEZER, Circuit Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. On the basis of the record before us, I cannot conclude that the defendants satisfied the requirements for the granting of a summary judgment set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

Rule 56(c) states that a summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the evidence in the record shows “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The burden rests upon the moving party to show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, rather than upon the nonmoving party to show the existence of such an issue. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159-60 , 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1609-10 , 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); International Union of Bricklayers v. Martin Jaska, Inc., 752 F.2d 1401 , 1405 (9th Cir.1985); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). The nonmoving party has no duty to produce evidence unless the moving party has met its burden. Lew v. Kona Hospital, 754 F.2d 1420, 1423 (9th Cir.1985). In antitrust actions, the burden on the moving party is especially great. See Poller v. CBS, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 473 , 82 S.Ct. 486, 491 , 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1962); Northrop Corp. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 705 F.2d 1030, 1050 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 156 , 78 L.Ed.2d 144 (1983).

Applying those standards, it is apparent that the defendants have not established the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Accordingly, I would reverse the granting of the summary judgment and remand for a trial on the merits regardless of whether the plaintiff has produced evidence in support of its allegations.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.