
    Skye TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-35343.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed April 1, 2010.
    Skye Taylor, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    Michelle C. Ferrara, Jeri Rouse Looney, Locke Lord Bissell & Lidell LLP, Los Angeles, CA, James Hermsen, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, Mark S. Northcraft, Esquire, Northcraft Bigby & Biggs, PC, Alfred Donohue, Gary Allan Western, Wilson Smith Cochran Dickerson, Seattle, WA, Frank Joseph Chmelik, Chmelik Sit-kin & Davis P.S., Bellingham, WA, Mark Dietzler, Esquire, Vandeberg Johnson & Gandara, Tacoma, WA, G. Saxon Rodgers, Esquire, Ditlevson Rodgers Dixon, Olympia, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Skye Taylor appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his antitrust action alleging defendants violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Beene v. Terhune, 380 F.3d 1149, 1150 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants because Taylor failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendants’ geographic sales-limit policy imposes “an unreasonable restraint on competition.” Business Elecs. Corp. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 485 U.S. 717, 723, 735-36, 108 S.Ct. 1515, 99 L.Ed.2d 808 (1988) (“[A] vertical restraint is not illegal per se unless it includes some agreement on price or price levels.”); JBL Enters., Inc. v. Jhirmack Enters., Inc., 698 F.2d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir.1983) (explaining that market shares of a few percentage points “are too small for any restraint on intrabrand competition to have a substantially adverse effect on interbrand competition”).

Taylor’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     