Portal:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

“ Bahr also argues that he properly pled a “tying” claim under the Cartwright Act. We disagree. The district court identified defects with Bahr’s tying claim and gave him an opportunity to amend his complaint, but Bahr did not do so. Because Bahr did not properly allege that replacement parts and services are two distinct products, see Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 462 (1992) , we agree with the district court that Bahr failed to properly plead a tying claim. Thus, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Bahr’s Cartwright Act claim. ”