Unfair competition: Antitrust Law:
Summary judgment:
Hawaii Law:
At issue in this case is what a plaintiff must
demonstrate to withstand summary
judgment on a claim for an unfair method of competition (here under Hawaii
Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 480).
To raise an issue of material fact as to the
nature of competition requirement of an unfair method of competition claim following
the close of discovery:
1 ) A plaintiff must demonstrate that the
defendant’s alleged anticompetitive conduct could negatively affect competition
but need not prove that the defendant in fact harmed competition,
2 ) In order to withstand summary judgment, a
plaintiff may generally describe the relevant market without resort to expert
testimony,
3 ) The plaintiff need not be a competitor of or
in competition with the defendant (…) See also HRS § 480-2(e) (“Any person may
bring an action based on unfair methods of competition declared unlawful by
this section.”)
(In this case, the record indicates that the
NCAA’s motion was filed after the close of discovery. It is noted that the
movant’s burden is generally greater when a party seeks summary judgment before
discovery has concluded. See Ralston v. Yim, 129 Hawai‘i 46, 48, 61, 292 P.3d
1276, 1278, 1291 (2013) (“In general, a summary judgment movant cannot merely
point to the non-moving party's lack of evidence to support its initial burden
of production if discovery has not concluded.” (citing French v. Hawaii Pizza Hut,
Inc., 105 Hawai‘i 462, 472, 99 P.3d 1046, 1056 (2004)))).
(In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, we
apply a burden-shifting framework under which the moving party bears the
initial burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists
with respect to the essential elements of the claim and that the undisputed
facts entitle the party to judgment as a matter of law. See Gurrobat v. HTH
Corp., 133 Hawai‘i 1, 14, 323 P.3d 792, 805 (2014). Where, as here, the
non-movant bears the burden of proof at trial, the movant may meet its initial
burden by either “(1) presenting evidence negating an element of the
non-movant's claim, or (2) demonstrating that the non-movant will be unable to
carry his or her burden of proof at trial.” Ralston, 129 Hawai‘i at 60-61, 292
P.3d at 1290-91 (citing French, 105 Hawai‘i at 470-72, 99 P.3d at 1054-56).
“Only once the moving party has satisfied its initial burden of production does
the burden shift to the non-moving party to show specific facts that present a
genuine issue for trial.” Gurrobat, 133 Hawai‘i at 14, 323 P.3d at
805).
(Supreme Court of the State of Hawai’i, Nov. 20,
2018, Field v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Docket
SCWC-15-0000663, J. Pollack)
Faits et preuves à
apporter pour éviter que la procédure se termine en défaveur du demandeur par
un « summary judgment ». En l’espèce, décision rendue en application
du droit de l’état de Hawaii, mais elle est d’intérêt pour les procédures du
même type rendues dans les autres états. Elle sera publiée dans le Pacific
Reporter.
