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

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · October 7, 1985 · 766 F.2d 1292

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9473705

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re AIRPORT CAR RENTAL ANTITRUST LITIGATION. TRANS RENT-A-CAR, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the HERTZ CORPORATION, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 7, 1985
- **Citations:** 766 F.2d 1292
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Beezer
- **Judges:** Beezer, Choy, Farris
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9473705

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9473705. Public record. Not legal advice.