T.W. Electrical Service, Inc., Shigeru Shinno dba Fairway Electric, Allied Electric Incorporated, N.N. Electric Company, Inc., Tri-Electric, Inc., Oskins Electric Co., Inc., Wasa Electrical Services, Inc., and Globe Electric, Inc. v. Pacific Electrical Contractors Association

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Pacific Electrical Contractors Association in an action brought by eight Hawaii electrical contractors alleging federal and state antitrust, unfair competition, and waste-of-assets claims. The court held that the contractors did not produce sufficient evidence of a conspiracy requiring all electrical contractors to contribute to an association fund, and that the state antitrust claim was likewise unsupported. The court also applied summary judgment principles under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and the evidentiary standards governing antitrust conspiracy claims.

Holdings

1. A nonmoving party opposing summary judgment must produce specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; it may not rely on the pleadings, speculation, credibility determinations, or the hope that evidence will emerge at trial.
2. Where an alleged section 1 conspiracy is supported only by ambiguous indirect evidence, the plaintiff must produce specific facts capable of sustaining a rational inference of conspiracy and tending to exclude the possibility that the defendant acted independently.
3. The contractors could not establish a section 1 claim merely by showing an agreement requiring contributions from PECA members or contractors that authorized PECA to represent them, particularly without evidence of injury to competition.
4. Summary judgment was proper on the Hawaii antitrust claim because Hawaii Revised Statutes section 480-4 is construed consistently with analogous federal antitrust statutes and the contractors failed to withstand summary judgment on their section 1 Sherman Act claim.
5. The contractors failed to produce sufficient evidence of an unfair or deceptive act, injury, damages, and the other requirements for a private action under Hawaii Revised Statutes sections 480-2 and 480-13.
6. The contractors failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding PECA's alleged misuse or waste of fund assets.
7. The court declined to award PECA attorney fees because the appeal, although nonmeritorious, was not shown to have been brought in bad faith or to have unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the contractors produced sufficient evidence of a conspiracy under section 1 of the Sherman Act to create a genuine issue of material fact.
2. Whether the contractors produced sufficient evidence of a violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes section 480-4.
3. Whether the contractors produced sufficient evidence of an unfair or deceptive act or practice under Hawaii Revised Statutes section 480-2.
4. Whether the contractors produced sufficient evidence that PECA improperly wasted or used fund assets outside the purposes stated in the master agreements.
5. Whether PECA was entitled to attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. section 1927 for the appeal.

Disposition

affirmed