In Walker v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. (E.D.Cal. 2007) 474 F.Supp.2d 1168, the plaintiff asserted the same three causes of action plaintiff asserts in this case based on virtually identical factual allegations. In rejecting the plaintiff's Cartwright Act claim, the district court stated: "Although Plaintiff has identified agreements between Defendant and other entities, those agreements are neither unlawful nor made for any anticompetitive purpose. This is not price-fixing: it is just buying and selling with an agreement on transaction prices." (Id. at p. 1175.) The district court further stated: "It is difficult to imagine that numerous independent auto body shops would conspire with Defendant for the purpose of depressing auto body rates paid to those same auto body shops. Plaintiff's allegations reveal only a well-functioning market for auto body repair; Defendant, a willing buyer, and willing sellers negotiate a fair price for labor the Defendant's insureds need and the sellers want to perform. Plaintiff's desire to charge more than the market will bear does not transform Defendant's lawful formation of service contracts into a forbidden conspiracy to destroy competition." (Walker, supra, 474 F.Supp.2d at p. 1175.)