BRYANT FONSECA V. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, No. 20-56161 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 14 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRYANT FONSECA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-56161 D.C. No. 3:19-cv-01748-GPC-MSB Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 7, 2021 Pasadena, California Before: GRABER and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY,** District Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Bryant Fonseca brought claims under the Sherman Act, California’s Cartwright Act, and California Business and Professions Code § 16600, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. against his former employer, Hewlett-Packard Co., HP Enterprise Services, LLC, and HP Inc. (“HP”). To support these claims, Fonseca alleges that HP entered into an unlawful no-poach agreement with rival 3D Systems, Inc., causing harm to himself and other HP employees. The district court dismissed with prejudice the several counts of the Third Amended Complaint related to this conduct and granted Fonseca’s motion for entry of judgment under Federal Civil Rule 54(b)—finding that Fonseca failed to properly allege a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted. Fonseca timely appealed. After reviewing the record, briefs, and applicable law, we conclude the thorough and carefully reasoned opinion of the district court correctly articulates and applies the law to the facts of this case. Issuance of a panel opinion would not serve any jurisprudential purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated by the district court, we affirm. AFFIRMED. 2 20-56161

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.