Soul'd Out Productions, LLC v. Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. et al
Filing
34
OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated above, I GRANT Defendants Motion to Dismiss 18 , with prejudice as to Claims Three and Nine. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint is October 25, 2018. Signed on 10/12/2018 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (kms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
SOUL’D OUT PRODUCTIONS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
No. 3:18-cv-00598-MO
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
ANSCHUTZ ENTERTAINMENT
GROUP, INC.; THE ANSCHUTZ
CORPORATION; GOLDENVOICE,
LLC; AEG PRESENTS, LLC;
COACHELLA MUSIC FESTIVAL,
LLC,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
This matter comes before me on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [18] Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint [17]. For the reasons stated on the record and the reasons stated below, I
GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Claims Three and Nine are dismissed with prejudice.
The remaining claims are dismissed with leave to amend.
DISCUSSION
As stated on the record, Plaintiff’s antitrust and restraint of trade claims (Claims One,
Two, and Four) are dismissed with leave to amend. After review, Plaintiff’s state law claims for
unfair competition (Claim Five), intentional interference with prospective economic advantage
(Claim Six), and intentional interference with contractual relations (Claims Seven and Eight) are
also dismissed with leave to amend.
1 – OPINION AND ORDER
The parties briefed and argued Plaintiff’s standing to challenge the terms of contracts to
which it was not a party or a third-party beneficiary. Plaintiff must have standing to challenge
the contracts executed by Defendants in order to bring its state law claims that those contracts
were unlawful restraints of trade (Claims Three and Nine). After reviewing the parties’
supplemental briefings, I find that Plaintiff does not have standing to challenge the disputed
terms of contracts formed between Defendants and parties that are not before the Court. The two
cases Plaintiff cited in its supplemental briefing do not suggest otherwise. See Applied
Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equip. (Shanghai) Co., 630 F. Supp. 2d 1084
(N.D. Cal. 2009); Application Grp., Inc. v. Hunter Grp., Inc., 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 73 (Cal. Ct. App.
1998). Although third parties established standing to challenge the contracts in those cases, the
facts and posture of the present case are distinguishable. Because Plaintiff cannot cure the lack
of standing by amending its pleading, Plaintiff’s unlawful restraint of trade claims (Claims Three
and Nine) are dismissed with prejudice.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, I GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [18], with
prejudice as to Claims Three and Nine. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a Second Amended
Complaint is October 25, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
DATED this ____ day of October, 2018.
/s/Michael W. Mosman
________________________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Chief United States District Judge
2 – OPINION AND ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?