Andrew Pullos v. Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDREW PULLOS, DBA Precision Nos. 09-16922, 09-17140
Engineering,
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00169-LRH-
Plaintiff - Appellant, RAM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ALLIANCE LAUNDRY SYSTEMS,
LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Andrew Pullos, DBA Precision Engineering,
appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Alliance
Laundry Systems, LLC, in his antitrust and unfair trade practices action. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Southland Sod Farms v.
Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir. 1997), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the tying antitrust
claims because Pullos failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
Alliance engaged in a tying arrangement. See N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States, 356
U.S. 1, 5-6 (1958) (a tying arrangement is “an agreement by a party to sell one
product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied)
product, or at least agrees that he will not purchase that product from any other
supplier”); Airweld, Inc. v. Airco, Inc., 742 F.2d 1184, 1189 n.2 (9th Cir. 1984)
(same framework applies for analyzing tying claims under both the Sherman Act
and the Clayton Act).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the disparagement
claim because Pullos failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
Alliance’s statements were either “false” or “material.” Southland Sod Farms, 108
F.3d at 1139 (stating elements for claim under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the interference
with prospective economic advantage claim because Pullos failed to raise a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether Alliance intended to harm Pullos. See
Leavitt v. Leisure Sports Incorporation, 734 P.2d 1221, 1225 (Nev. 1987) (stating
2 09-16922
elements for wrongful interference with prospective economic advantage claim
under Nevada law).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the intentional
infliction of emotional distress claim because Pullos failed to raise a genuine issue
of material fact as to whether Alliance’s alleged conduct was “extreme and
outrageous” or he suffered “severe or extreme emotional distress.” Star v. Rabello,
625 P.2d 90, 91-92 (Nev. 1981) (stating elements for emotional distress claim
under Nevada law).
Pullos’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Pullos has waived issues not “specifically and distinctly” argued in his
opening brief. Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 797 F.2d 727, 738 (9th Cir. 1986).
AFFIRMED.
3 09-16922