2. 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.
3. Lastly, Bahr argues that his Song-Beverly and Cartwright claims support a derivative claim under the UCL. Because we find that the district court properly dismissed these claims, however, Bahr’s claim under the UCL necessarily fails. Thus, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Bahr’s UCL claim.
Affirmed.
3
