Anell v. Freeport Minerals Corp.

Full title: William ANELL and Ardith Anell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FREEPORT…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 31, 1995

56 F.3d 70 (9th Cir. 1995)

Opinion

56 F.3d 70 (9th Cir. 1995) William ANELL and Ardith Anell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FREEPORT MINERALS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellees. William ANELL and Ardith Anell, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FREEPORT MINERALS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Basic, Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 93-15687, 93-15787. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit May 31, 1995

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Submitted May 11, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Nos. CV-92-317-ECR, CV-92-317-ECR; Edward C. Reed, District Judge, Presiding.

D.Nev.

AFFIRMED.

Before CUMMINGS, ^* SCHROEDER and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

* Honorable Walter J. Cummings, United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

William and Ardith Anell appeal the dismissal of their complaint. Due to a slew of late voluntary dismissals of parties only one defendant, Basic, Inc., and one claim, a Sherman Act violation, remain in this appeal. Defendant cross-appeals for sanctions. We have jurisdiction, and we affirm.

I.

The district court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We review this dismissal de novo. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1198 (9th Cir. 1988). This court, like the district court, must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations contained in the complaint, and must not uphold the dismissal unless the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim. Oscar v. University Students Co-op Ass'n, 965 F.2d 783, 785 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 655 (1992).

Plaintiffs allege a violation of federal antitrust law stemming from Basic, Inc.'s involvement with some land known as Paradise Peak. Their complaint states no facts under which Basic, Inc., could be guilty of antitrust violations. Moreover, the only act which Basic is alleged to have committed-- the formation of a monopolistic "property" unit in the region--occurred in 1982, and is thus barred by the statute of limitations from serving as the predicate for an antitrust claim. 15 U.S.C. § 15b.

II.

Basic, Inc., cross-appeals for attorneys' fees and costs, claiming that the district judge impermissibly failed to impose these after stating in his Order that plaintiffs' conduct warranted sanctions. However, the Order does not explicitly call for sanctions and none will be ordered at this time. The district court's order thus is AFFIRMED.

FN** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.