descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Cascade Health Solutions Fka, McKenzie Hospital, an Oregon Nonprofit Corporation v. Peacehealth, a Washington State Nonprofit Corporation, Cascade Health Solutions Fka McKenzie Hospital, an Oregon Nonprofit Corporation v. Peacehealth, a Washington State Nonprofit Corporation, Cascade Health Solutions Fka McKenzie Hospital, an Oregon Nonprofit Corporation v. Peacehealth, a Washington State Nonprofit Corporation, Cascade Health Solutions Fka McKenzie Hospital, an Oregon Nonprofit Corporation v. Peacehealth, a Washington State Nonprofit Corporation

Citation: 479 F.3d 726Docket: 05-35627

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; March 20, 2007; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Cascade Health Solutions, the plaintiff-appellant, is contesting claims against PeaceHealth, the defendant-appellee, concerning attempted monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The primary legal issue focuses on whether the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's bundled discount pricing falls below a particular cost measure to demonstrate predatory or anticompetitive behavior. The court has solicited supplemental briefs from amicus curiae to address this issue, seeking guidance on the appropriate cost measures and jury instructions. This procedural step involves a thirty-day deadline for filing responses, with strict adherence to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure regarding brief format and length. The outcome of these proceedings will significantly impact the parties involved, potentially setting a precedent for how bundled discounts are evaluated in antitrust litigation.

Legal Issues Addressed

Attempted Monopolization under Sherman Act Section 2

Application: The court is examining the requirements for establishing claims of attempted monopolization, specifically whether the plaintiff must show that the defendant's prices for bundled discounts fall below a certain cost measure.

Reasoning: The central issue raised is whether a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's prices for bundled discounts are below a certain cost measure to establish predatory or anticompetitive conduct.

Procedural Requirements for Filing Supplemental Briefs

Application: The court has outlined specific procedural requirements for the filing of supplemental briefs by amicus curiae, including a thirty-day deadline and compliance with page and type-volume limitations.

Reasoning: The order specifies that responses to this request must be filed within thirty days and must comply with the applicable page and type-volume limitations set by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Role of Amicus Curiae in Antitrust Litigation

Application: The court has requested supplemental briefs from amicus curiae to clarify the cost measure necessary for establishing predatory pricing and to aid in jury instruction.

Reasoning: The court is seeking supplemental briefs from amicus curiae on this matter, specifically asking for clarification on the necessary cost measure and how the jury should be instructed regarding costs.