Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
Decision Date | 24 February 1976 |
Docket Number | 73-1953,73-1955,Nos. 73-1954,s. 73-1954 |
Citation | 532 F.2d 674 |
Parties | 1976-1 Trade Cases 60,757 CALNETICS CORPORATION and Meier-Line, Inc., Appellants, v. VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Appellees. CALNETICS CORPORATION, Appellee, v. VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., Appellant (five cases). to 73-1958. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before BARNES, CHOY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
*
Volkswagen of America, Inc. (VW), and its wholly owned subsidiary, Volkswagen Products Corporation (Subsidiary), defendants in a private antitrust action brought by Calnetics Corporation, 1 appeal a district court judgment ordering VW's divestiture of Subsidiary and other equitable relief. VW and Subsidiary also appeal a summary judgment dismissing their counterclaims against Calnetics, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs to Calnetics.
Calnetics cross-appeals from summary judgments and a directed verdict dismissing its claims for damages against VW, Subsidiary, and Volkswagen Pacific, Inc. (Distributor), an independently owned corporation which until 1973 2 distributed VW-imported automobiles and accessories in southern California, southern Nevada, Arizona, and Hawaii.
Distributor appeals from the district court's denial of its motion to amend its answer to add a counterclaim under § 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13(c).
The summary judgment in favor of Calnetics on each of VW's counterclaims is affirmed, as is the summary judgment in favor of Calnetics on Subsidiary's counterclaim based on the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. All other judgments challenged on appeal are reversed. The district court's denial of Distributor's motion to add a counterclaim under 15 U.S.C. § 13(c) is also reversed. The district court's award of attorneys' fees and deposition copy costs to Calnetics is set aside. A legend of the parties and claims appears in the margin. 3
TABLE CONTINUED Disposition ----------------------------------------------------------- Location of District 9th Discussion Court Circuit in Opinion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Directed verdict Reversed I. B for VW & Subsidiary Divestiture Reversed III. C. 1 Import ban Questioned III. C. 3 Other remedies Questioned III. C. Sum. judg. * Reversed I. D. for VW & Subsidiary Sum. judg. * Reversed I. D. for VW & Subsidiary Sum. Judg. for Reversed I. A. Distributor Sum. judg. for Affirmed ** I. C. Calnetics Denied leave Reversed V. to amend answer so as to assert cause of action Attorney fee Reversed IV. A. for Calnetics Costs for Reversed IV. B. Calentics -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* After vacating an earlier denial of summary judgment for VW and Subsidiary.
** Summary judgment for Calnetics on Subsidiary's non-Sherman Act
counterclaims was vacated and remanded.
VW, a wholly owned subsidiary of the German automobile manufacturer (Volkswagenwerk A.G.), imports Volkswagen, Porsche, and Audi automobiles into the United States. On September 26, 1969, VW acquired a manufacturer of automobile air conditioning equipment, and changed its name to Volkswagen Products Corporation (Subsidiary). Approximately one year later, Calnetics, an independent manufacturer of automobile air conditioning equipment which previously sold to Distributor, brought suit alleging that VW's acquisition of Subsidiary violated § 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.
The allegation of a § 7 violation was premised mainly on a theory of vertical restraint 4 that VW would be able to coerce both its wholly owned and indirectly controlled distributors and dealers to satisfy their demand for automobile air conditioning equipment from Subsidiary's supply, thus foreclosing sales opportunities of Calnetics and other independent air conditioning manufacturers (hereinafter referred to generically as "Delta"). Calnetics also alleged that VW, Distributor, and Subsidiary 5 had conspired and combined to restrain competition in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of air conditioning systems for Volkswagen, Karmann Ghia, and Porsche automobiles in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and had actually monopolized and attempted to monopolize the distribution, manufacture, and sale of air conditioning systems in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2.
Calnetics sought both damages and equitable relief, including divestiture of Subsidiary. Its claims for damages under the Sherman and Clayton Acts were premised entirely on its exclusion from competition for the sale of automobile air conditioning equipment to Distributor.
VW and Subsidiary counterclaimed, alleging that a secret agreement between Calnetics and the head of Distributor's service department, R. W. Christiansen, which provided Christiansen and his wholly owned corporation, RWC Sales Corp. with a 3% commission on all sales to Distributor, violated §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, § 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman Act, 6 and California state law. VW and Subsidiary sought both damages and equitable relief. Distributor filed a counterclaim based on state law, but was not allowed to amend its answer to include a counterclaim under the Robinson-Patman Act.
On February 28, 1972, the trial court granted Distributor's motion for summary judgment on all claims against it, 7 but rejected motions for summary judgment by VW and Subsidiary. The court also granted Calnetics' motion for summary judgment on the counterclaims brought by VW and Subsidiary.
After the February 28 summary judgments, the only claims remaining to be tried were those by Calnetics against VW and Subsidiary under §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and § 7 of the Clayton Act. The district court had earlier ordered that the § 7 claim be tried separately from, and prior to, the Sherman Act claims. Accordingly, a jury trial commenced April 4, 1972 on the § 7 claim.
Upon the conclusion of Calnetics' case in chief, the district court directed a verdict in favor of VW and Subsidiary on the issue of damages, dismissed the jury, and proceeded to hear further evidence on Calnetics' claim for equitable relief.
On June 30, 1972, the district court held that VW's acquisition of Subsidiary violated § 7 of the Clayton Act. Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 348 F.Supp. 606 (C.D.Cal.1972). It granted judgment for Calnetics but deferred the execution of the relief until the parties had presented "plans for accomplishing the (equitable) relief granted * * *." 348 F.Supp. at 623.
On July 10, 1972, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of VW and Subsidiary on the postponed Sherman Act claims. Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 348 F.Supp. 623 (C.D.Cal.1972).
On January 19, 1973, the district court issued a supplemental order which: provided for VW's divestiture of Subsidiary; enjoined VW and its wholly owned subsidiaries for a period of seven years from importing into the United States any Volkswagen, Porsche, or Audi automobiles equipped with factory-installed air conditioning; imposed a 10-year ban on domestic manufacture and assembly of automobile air conditioners by VW; and permanently enjoined VW and its wholly owned distributors from satisfying more than 50% of their need for automobile air conditioners from the output of the divested firm. Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 353 F.Supp. 1219 (C.D.Cal.1973).
I. DAMAGE CLAIMS AGAINST VW, SUBSIDIARY, AND DISTRIBUTOR; COUNTERCLAIMS OF VW AND SUBSIDIARY.
VW and Subsidiary argue that all the summary dispositions in their favor and in favor of Distributor are correct. VW and Subsidiary also argue that even if only one of the three summary dispositions in favor of them or Distributor is correct VW and Subsidiary are necessarily entitled to summary dismissal of all the plaintiff's damage claims. Finally, VW and Subsidiary argue that if all three summary dispositions in favor of them or Distributor are erroneous then Calnetics' entire § 7 claim, which sought both damages and equitable relief, must be remanded for a jury trial. With respect to their counterclaims, VW and Subsidiary urge that the summary judgment in favor of Calnetics was erroneous.
Calnetics argues that the three summary dispositions in favor of Distributor, VW, and Subsidiary were erroneous. It does not respond directly, however, to VW and Subsidiary's argument that the consequence of that error is that VW and Subsidiary become entitled to a jury trial on the entire § 7 claim. (Calnetics implicitly concedes that the defendants can have a jury trial, because Calnetics asserts error in the summary judgments against Calnetics on the damages claims.)
We consider first Calnetics' challenges to the summary dispositions of its damages claims against VW, Subsidiary, and Distributor. In conjunction with our analysis of these challenges, we will also consider VW's and Subsidiary's challenge to the summary judgment dismissing their counterclaims against Calnetics.
A. Summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
CONSORTIUM OF COM. BASED ORGANIZATIONS v. Donovan, Civ. No. S-81-135 LKK.
...... See Solinger v. A & M Records, Inc., 586 F.2d 1304, 1307-08 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. ...1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 532 F.2d ......
-
Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 77-1474
...loss or damage" requirement of § 16); Cf. Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagon of America, Inc., 348 F.Supp. 606 (C.D.Cal.1972), Modified, 532 F.2d 674 (9th Cir.), Cert. denied, 429 U.S. 940, 97 S.Ct. 355, 50 L.Ed.2d 309 (1976) (plaintiff entitled to injunctive relief despite failure to prove caus......
-
Associated General Contractors v. Otter Tail Power, Civ. No. A78-1009.
...... Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, 547 F.2d 197, 199 (2d Cir. 1977). . ... of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d ..." (emphasis added). See also Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 532 F.2d ......
-
Proctor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 80-2437
......at 1075 (quoting SEC v. National Securities, Inc., 393 U.S. 453, 460, 89 S.Ct. 564, 568, 21 ...General Motors Corp., 518 F.2d 420, 441 (D.C.Cir.1975), when a motion ...1979); Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 532 F.2d ......
-
Robinson-Patman Act
...F.2d 1052, 1066 (3d Cir. 1988); Grace v. E.J. Kozim Co., 538 F.2d 170, 173 (7th Cir. 1976); Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 532 F.2d 674 (9th Cir. 1976); see also FTC v. Henry Broch & Co., 363 U.S. 166, 169 n.6 (1960) (suggesting that § 2(c) might proscribe commercial bribery). ......
-
Table of Cases
...435 (5th Cir. 1966), 91 Cal. Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972), 45, 188 Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of Am., 532 F.2d 674 (9th Cir. 1976), 30 Cal. Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v. Midcal Aluminum, 445 U.S. 97 (1980), 43, 185, 187 Calumet Breweries, Inc. v. G. Heile......
-
Potential Defenses
...to have made an adequate effort where it failed to use a broker to attempt to locate other potential purchasers), rev’d on other grounds , 532 F.2d 674 (9th Cir. 1976); Harbour Grp. Invs. , 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15542, at *11-20 (search insufficient when banker not engaged until too late in......
-
Market Definition
...of supply would seem to be as important as the demand factor in determining relevant product market.”); Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen, 532 F.2d 674, 691 (9th Cir. 1976) (holding, in claim under Clayton Act Section 7, district court’s failure to consider cross-elasticity of production was er......