High Tek USA, Inc. v. Heat and Control, Inc.

Filing 103

SUMMARY OPINION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER OF REFERENCE TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR SETTLEMENT by Hon. William H. Orrick granting in part and denying in part [ 81] Motion for Summary Judgment. As ordered at the March 5, 2014 hearing, the pretrial Conference is rescheduled to May 19, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. Trial remains scheduled to commence on June 16, 2014. This case is referred for random assignment to a Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference to occur no later than May 1, 2014.(jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
HIGH TEK USA, INC.,

7

Case No. 12-cv-00805-WHO

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
HEAT AND CONTROL, INC.,

10

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

SUMMARY OPINION GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER OF
REFERENCE TO A MAGISTRATE
JUDGE FOR SETTLEMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 81

13
14
Defendant Heat & Control Inc. has moved for summary judgment of all of plaintiff High
15

Tek USA Inc.’s claims, or in the alternative, for partial summary judgment on each separate claim

16
for relief. High Tek asserts six causes of action: i) violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
17
U.S.C. § 1; ii) violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2; iii) violation of the
18

Robinson-Patman Act, 1 15 U.S.C. § 13; iv) intentional interference with contractual relations; v)

19
intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and; vi) violation of the California
20
Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. The parties appeared before the
21
Court for oral argument on March 5, 2014. A full opinion will follow. I issue the following
22
23
1

24
25
26
27
28

High Tek also alleges a cause of action for violation of Section 2 of the Clayton Act for price
discrimination (seventh cause of action). However, Section 2 of the Clayton Act is the RobinsonPatman Act, so High Tek’s third and seventh causes of action are duplicative. See, e.g., Colabella
v. Am. Inst. of Certified Pub. Accountants, 2011 WL 4532132 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2011)
(“Plaintiffs bring a claim under Section 2 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13 (as amended by the
Robinson–Patman Act of 1936 and hereafter referred to as the “Robinson–Patman Act”); Zenith
Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 494 F. Supp. 1190, 1214 (E.D. Pa. 1980)
(“Section 1 of the Robinson-Patman Act, 49 Stat. 1526 (1936), made extensive amendments in
section 2 of the Clayton Act; the amended section is often referred to simply as “the RobinsonPatman Act,” since the original version of section 2 of the Clayton Act is no longer operative.”).

1
2

summary rulings in order to allow the parties to prepare for trial.
Having considered the briefs submitted by the parties and arguments of counsel, I GRANT

3

Heat and Control’s motion for partial summary judgment on the cause of actions for violations of

4

Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (first cause of action); Section 2 of the Sherman Act,

5

15 U.S.C. § 2 (second cause of action); and intentional interference with prospective economic

6

advantage (fifth cause of action). Those causes of action are DISMISSED from this action.

7

I DENY Heat and Control’s motion for partial summary judgment of the causes of action

8

for violations of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13 (third cause of action); intentional

9

interference with contractual relations (fourth cause of action); and violation of the California

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq (sixth cause of action).
As ordered at the March 5, 2014 hearing, the pretrial Conference is rescheduled to May 19,
2014 at 2:00 p.m. Trial remains scheduled to commence on June 16, 2014.
This case is referred for random assignment to a Magistrate Judge for a settlement

14

conference to occur no later than May 1, 2014. The parties will be advised of the date, time and

15

place of appearance by notice from the assigned magistrate judge. The parties are directed to

16

contact the courtroom deputy of the undersigned judge if they are not advised of the assigned

17

magistrate judge within fourteen days.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated: March 14, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2