Legal Opinion
Cates v. Crystal Clear Technologies, LLC
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided October 30, 2017No. 16-6714Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part 1
CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART
2Concurring in part, dissenting in part · MooreKaren Nelson Moore, Circuit Judge
Because I believe that the plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded an exclusivity claim, I would reverse the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion seeking leave to file the second amended complaint on this claim as well as on the plaintiffs’ tying claim. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from Part II.C of the majority’s opinion.
I
In its 2007 “Exclusivity Order” the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) found that “the greatest harm that exclusivity clauses cause residents of MDUs [multiple dwelling units] is that they deny those residents…
3Cases cited9 opinions
- Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin, & Jenrette, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2004
- Bob Pearsall Motors, Inc. v. Regal Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1975
- Frizzell Construction Co. v. Gatlinburg, L.L.C.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1999
- Ferro Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Garrison Industries, Inc., Defendant-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
- Lansdowne on the Potomac Homeowners Ass'n v. OpenBand at Lansdowne, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2013
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.