Skye Taylor v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
EN/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SKYE TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-35343
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01849-RSL
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Skye Taylor appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his antitrust action alleging defendants violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15
FILED
APR 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EN/Research 09-35343 2
U.S.C. § 1. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Beene v. Terhune, 380 F.3d 1149, 1150 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants because
Taylor failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendants’ geographic sales-
limit policy imposes “an unreasonable restraint on competition.” Business Elecs.
Corp. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 485 U.S. 717, 723, 735-36 (1988) (“[A] vertical
restraint is not illegal per se unless it includes some agreement on price or price
levels.”); JBL Enters., Inc. v. Jhirmack Enters., Inc., 698 F.2d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir.
1983) (explaining that market shares of a few percentage points “are too small for
any restraint on intrabrand competition to have a substantially adverse effect on
interbrand competition”).
Taylor’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --