FULLER BROS. INC. v. INTERNATIONAL MARKETING, INC.
Decision Date | 14 July 1994 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 93-1105-FR. |
Citation | 858 F. Supp. 142 |
Parties | FULLER BROTHERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL MARKETING, INC. and U.S. Technology Corporation, Defendants. INTERNATIONAL MARKETING, INC. Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. FULLER BROTHERS, INC. and Craig Fuller, Counterclaim Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Marvin S. Nepom, Portland, OR, for plaintiff/counterclaim defendants.
James M. Callahan, Callahan & Shears, P.C., Portland, OR, Mark A. Watkins, Oldham, Oldham & Wilson Co., L.P.A., Akron, OH, for defendant/counterclaim plaintiff Intern. Marketing, Inc.
The matter before the court is the motion of defendant International Marketing, Inc. for partial summary judgment (# 52).
Plaintiff, Fuller Brothers, Inc. (Fuller Brothers), manufactures, sells and distributes "Tire Life," a liquid formula that extends the life of truck tires when it is placed inside the tires at the time they are mounted.
Defendant International Marketing, Inc. (International Marketing) manufactures, sells and distributes "Equal," a dry, powder-like formula that reduces vibration and eliminates radial and lateral force variation when it is placed inside the tires during the wheel-assembly balancing procedure.
Tire Life and Equal do not perform the same function, and they cannot be used in a truck tire at the same time.
In April of 1993, Fuller Brothers filed a complaint against International Marketing with the regional office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. In the complaint filed with OSHA, Fuller Brothers asserted that the product Equal releases formaldehyde gas and presents a health hazard to workers removing vehicle tires for repair because the inert urea formaldehyde component of Equal continuously breaks down, emitting formaldehyde at levels far greater than 0.1 parts per million.
On September 7, 1993, Fuller Brothers filed the complaint in this case against International Marketing alleging a claim for the interference with business relationships or prospective advantage. International Marketing then filed an answer to Fuller Brothers' complaint and counterclaims against Fuller Brothers for violation of the Lanham Act, libel, and tortious interference with business.
On October 18, 1993, Robert M. Fink, Area Director of OSHA, wrote to International Marketing stating, in part:
Exhibit C to Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
On February 3, 1994, Fink wrote International Marketing again stating:
Id. at Exhibit D.
International Marketing moves the court for the entry of judgment in its favor and against Fuller Brothers on the claim for the interference with business relationships or prospective advantage. International Marketing asserts that the OSHA findings establish that Fuller Brothers cannot prevail as a matter of law. In addition, International Marketing asserts that Fuller Brothers has failed to establish that International Marketing intentionally interfered with its business relationships.
Fuller Brothers contends that the OSHA findings were not made in a judicial capacity with an opportunity for the parties to litigate disputed facts and do not preclude the parties from litigating the issues in this case. Fuller Brothers argues that it has alleged in the complaint a claim for the intentional interference with business relationships with improper motives or by improper means and ensuing damages. Fuller Brothers asserts that it is, therefore, entitled to a determination by the finder of fact.
Summary judgment is appropriate where "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The initial burden is on the moving party to point out the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Once the initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the opponent to demonstrate through the production of probative evidence that there remains an issue of fact to be tried. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment, all reasonable doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of fact should be resolved against the moving party. Hector v. Wiens, 533 F.2d 429, 432 (9th Cir.1976).
When an administrative agency properly resolves disputed issues of fact which the parties have had an opportunity to fully present to the administrative agency, the courts have not hesitated to apply the doctrines of claim preclusion or res judicata. United States v. Utah Constr. and Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 421-22, 86 S.Ct. 1545, 1559-60, 16 L.Ed.2d 642 (1966). The record in this case is not adequate for this court to conclude that the parties have had an opportunity to fully present to the administrative agency the disputed issue relating to formaldehyde.
In order to state a claim for the intentional interference with business relationships, Fuller Brothers must establish 1) a contract or a reasonable expectancy of economic advantage; 2) knowledge of such contract or expectancy; 3) intentional interference with the contract or expectancy; 4) improper means or motive wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself; and 5) damage as a result. See Leaco Enters. v. General Elec. Co., 737 F.Supp. 605, 609 (D.Or.1990).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Planned Parenthood of Missoula Inc. v. Blouke, CV-94-028-GF.
-
Morgan v. Kimco Realty Corp.
... ... in dispute. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 ... U.S. 242, 249 (1986). “Where ... refers only generally to the ADA, International Property ... Management codes, Standards ... See ... Fuller Bros. v. Int'l Mktg., Inc., 858 F.Supp ... ...
-
Fuller Bros., Inc. v. International Marketing, Inc.
...on the claim of the plaintiff, Fuller Brothers, Inc. (Fuller Brothers), for the intentional interference with economic advantage. 858 F.Supp. 142. The court stated the facts as Plaintiff, Fuller Brothers, Inc. (Fuller Brothers), manufactures, sells and distributes "Tire Life," a liquid form......