Dismissal of Antitrust Action Against California Travel and Tourism Commission Affirmed - U.S. Ninth Circuit
U.S. Ninth Circuit - The FindLaw 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Dismissal of Antitrust Action Against California Travel and Tourism Commission Affirmed

Also, Decisions in Criminal and Employment Matters

In US v. Laurienti, No. 07-50240, the court of appeals affirmed defendants' convictions for securities fraud conspiracy, holding that 1) defendants did not challenge, and overwhelming evidence supported the finding, that the conspiracy existed and that at least one member of it performed an overt act; 2) the district court erred by failing to give a "trust relationship" jury instruction, but defendants intentionally relinquished their right to challenge the jury instruction; and 3) the characterization of the sales practices as unlawful was relevant, because the government sought to prove that, as conducted by defendants (with an intent to defraud and in violation of trust relationship duties), the practices were indeed unlawful. However, defendants' sentences are vacated where the district court erred in calculating loss both for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines and for purposes of restitution.

Zuress v. Donley, No. 08-17559, involved a Title VII action claiming sex discrimination by the Air Force.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the action, holding that the intramilitary immunity doctrine, as embraced by the Ninth Circuit in Mier v. Owens, 57 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 1995), was not superseded by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998.

Shames v. Cal. Travel & Tourism Comm., No. 08-56750, involved an action against the California Travel and Tourism Commission ("CTTC") alleging that the CTTC engaged in antitrust price-fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, and improper meeting practices in violation of California's Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.  The court affirmed the dismissal of the action, holding that the CTTC was shielded from antitrust liability under the "state action immunity" doctrine.

Related Resources