Supreme Court of the State of Hawai’i, Field v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Docket SCWC-15-0000663

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.