Bryant Fonseca, an individual, on behalf of himself v. Hewlett-Packard Company;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRYANT FONSECA, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-56161
D.C. No.
3:19-cv-01748-GPC-MSB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 7, 2021
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY,** District
Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant Bryant Fonseca brought claims under the Sherman Act,
California’s Cartwright Act, and California Business and Professions Code § 16600,
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
FILED
OCT 14 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-56161
against his former employer, Hewlett-Packard Co., HP Enterprise Services, LLC,
and HP Inc. (“HP”). To support these claims, Fonseca alleges that HP entered into
an unlawful no-poach agreement with rival 3D Systems, Inc., causing harm to
himself and other HP employees.
The district court dismissed with prejudice the several counts of the Third
Amended Complaint related to this conduct and granted Fonseca’s motion for entry
of judgment under Federal Civil Rule 54(b)—finding that Fonseca failed to properly
allege a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted. Fonseca timely appealed.
After reviewing the record, briefs, and applicable law, we conclude the
thorough and carefully reasoned opinion of the district court correctly articulates and
applies the law to the facts of this case. Issuance of a panel opinion would not serve
any jurisprudential purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated by the district court,
we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --