Green v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc.

Decision Date05 November 1982
Docket NumberNo. 81-2170,81-2170
Parties1982-83 Trade Cases 65,018 Rollin GREEN and Jacqueline Green, Appellants, v. ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCERS, INC., Delbert E. Presnell, Kenneth Gniffke, and Wayne B. Anderson, Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Sydney Berde, Richard M. Hagstrom, Berde & Hagstrom, P.A., St. Paul, Minn., for appellees.

Stephen P. Hurley, Madison, Wis., Allen H. Gibas, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellants.

Before McMILLIAN and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and VAN SICKLE, * District Judge.

ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Rollin Green and Jacqueline Green, his wife, 1 brought this action under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15 (1976), 2 against Associated Milk Producers, Inc. (AMPI), and three of its employees, Delbert E. Presnell, Kenneth Gniffke, and Wayne B. Anderson, charging that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1 (1976). Specifically, the Greens allege that the defendants conspired with two independent milk haulers, James Kalina and Donald Schaak, and with several milk producers to allocate milk hauling customers and restrain competition in the milk hauling business. The District Court 3 found no evidence of an unlawful conspiracy, granted summary judgment in favor of AMPI, and dismissed all claims. 4 We affirm.

I.

Since we review a summary judgment, we view the evidence most favorably to the Greens and give them "the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts disclosed in the pleadings, depositions and affidavits in the case." EEOC v. Liberty Loan Corp., 584 F.2d 853, 857 (8th Cir. 1978). The facts related below are stated in accordance with this standard.

AMPI is an incorporated dairy cooperative engaged in hauling, processing, and marketing milk and milk products in several states. Its members, dairy farmers who ship their milk to AMPI plants, control the cooperative through elected representatives who set policies for management to follow. AMPI owns and operates dairies in Rochester and New Prague, Minnesota. At all relevant times, Wayne B. Anderson was manager of the New Prague division, and Delbert E. Presnell was manager of the Rochester division.

Because it is perishable, milk must be picked up every day. This is done by haulers. Some haulers are employed by AMPI, while some are independent. The haulers are responsible for weighing, sampling, and transporting to the processing plant the milk of the producers on their routes. The plant pays the producer upon the basis of the weight measured and recorded on the manifest at the farm and the butterfat content of the sample. The state regulates various aspects of milk hauling.

Independent haulers establish routes, which consist of a number of producers for whom milk is hauled to a particular plant. These routes are bought and sold, and haulers solicit one another's customers, sometimes competing on the basis of the hauling fee charged the farmers. The plant to which the producer's milk is shipped deducts the hauling fee from the money owed the producer for his or her milk and pays the hauler.

In order to reduce hauling costs, AMPI arranges and rearranges hauling routes. At all relevant times, Kenneth Gniffke was AMPI's regional procurement director, responsible for preventing two or three independent haulers destined for the same plant from traveling the same roads. He did this by redrawing routes and having haulers trade customers.

In 1976 the Greens bought a route destined for AMPI's Rochester plant from another independent hauler. They made this purchase so that some of their existing patrons, for whom they had been hauling to the Mid-America Dairies plant in Zumbrota, Minnesota, could switch to the AMPI plant. 5 On December 13, 1976, Rollin Green signed a "Carrier's Contract" with AMPI in which he agreed to haul the milk of AMPI members in the Minnesota counties of Dakota, Rice, and Goodhue "to such plant or plants as AMPI may from time to time designate."

Some of the Greens' patrons who began shipping to the AMPI Rochester plant were located in what had been the procurement area of AMPI's New Prague plant. The Rochester plant paid these producers a hauling subsidy so that they would not lose money by shipping to AMPI. 6 The two AMPI plants began to compete with each other for milk, and problems arose because producers in the same area were shipping to different AMPI plants and were receiving different prices for their milk. Anderson, manager of the New Prague division, wanted the milk from this area to go to New Prague.

In October 1977 Gniffke and Anderson met individually with Rollin Green and two other independent haulers, Kalina and Schaak, who had New Prague routes. As a result of these meetings, the three haulers' routes were redrawn and some of their customers were traded. The Greens were dissatisfied with the arrangement because it required them to haul partial loads to both the Rochester and New Prague plants, and this was uneconomical for them. After the Greens complained, the routes were rearranged so that the Greens hauled only to Rochester, but they had to give up some of their patrons to the other haulers.

On August 3, 1978, members of AMPI management, including Anderson and Presnell, met with some of the producers on the Greens' route to discuss the Greens' performance. Minutes of this meeting show that the participants aired grievances about the Greens, agreed that AMPI would not lose patrons by taking over the Greens' route, and decided that the Greens should be fired. This was to be done at an official hauling committee meeting on Monday, August 7, 1978. Presnell stated at the August 3 meeting that arrangements for handling the milk of the Greens' patrons would be made in a meeting on Friday, August 4, with New Prague and Rochester fieldmen. He also said that fieldmen would inform the patrons that Braun, one of the Greens' haulers, would continue to haul for AMPI, and that there would be a meeting of procurement people from Rochester and New Prague to divide routes again.

On August 7, 1978, the AMPI hauling committee, composed of producers on the Greens' route, met with AMPI management beginning at 11:30 a.m. at a cafe in Cannon Falls, Minnesota. AMPI management told the producers that the Greens were delivering loads of milk that were short-weight, contained high bacteria counts, and were watered. The Greens had been told to come to the meeting at 3:00 p.m.; they were not told what the meeting was about. When they were allowed to enter the meeting, the Greens were told the hauling committee had voted unanimously to terminate their hauling services. They were not told the reasons for this decision and were not allowed to speak.

After the meeting, Anderson, Presnell, Gniffke, and two other AMPI employees met with Kalina and Schaak in Northfield, Minnesota. They agreed to divide the patrons on the Greens' route among Schaak, Kalina, and AMPI employees. The next morning, AMPI fieldmen began visiting the producers and told them that the Greens had been terminated for poor service. The Greens lost all their customers, and their milk-hauling business failed.

II.

The Greens sued, charging (1) that AMPI and the individual defendants combined and conspired with Kalina and Schaak to allocate customers and markets for milk hauling among themselves in the counties surrounding the New Prague and Rochester plants and to keep other milk haulers from freely competing within that area, and (2) that the defendants conspired with individual milk producers to boycott and terminate the Greens' milk-hauling business. The Greens alleged that in furtherance of the conspiracy, (1) AMPI held periodic meetings with milk haulers at which milk-hauling customers were exchanged, geographic territories for each hauler were established, and the destinations to which each hauler could transport milk were established; (2) the defendants met with producers on the Greens' route on August 7, 1978, and agreed to fire the Greens, tell the Greens' other customers of their decision, and assign other haulers to haul the Greens' customers' milk; and (3) the defendants contacted all the Greens' customers, told them that the Greens had stolen, watered down, and contaminated the milk of their customers and were out of the business, and appropriated these customers for AMPI, Kalina, and Schaak.

The District Court concluded, after reviewing the complaint and materials offered in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, that the Greens alleged three conspiracies:

(1) conspiracy between AMPI and its employees to restrain competition in the milk hauling business, (2) conspiracy between AMPI, its employees, and supplier members to boycott and refuse to deal with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Amerinet, Inc. v. Xerox Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • August 26, 1992
    ...Rosebrough Monument Co. v. Memorial Park Cemetery Assoc., 666 F.2d 1130, 1146 (8th Cir.1981). See also Green v. Assoc. Milk Producers, Inc., 692 F.2d 1153, 1157-58 (8th Cir.1982) ("To recover under Section 4 of the Clayton Act," plaintiff "must establish a causal relationship between the al......
  • Bell v. Fur Breeders Agricultural Co-Op.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • November 7, 2003
    ...their authority[5] or for their own benefit" rather than the benefit of the cooperative as a whole. See Green v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 692 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (8th Cir.1982); Nelson Radio & Supply Co. v. Motorola, Inc., 200 F.2d 911, 914 (5th Cir.1952).6 Moreover, Section 1 of the......
  • Miller Insituform v. Insituform of North America
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • March 27, 1985
    ...677 F.2d 946, 953 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1007, 103 S.Ct. 362, 74 L.Ed.2d 398 (1982); Green v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 692 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (8th Cir.1982). Plaintiffs' allegation of a conspiracy between INA and its wholly-owned subsidiaries similarly fails to make a......
  • Concord Boat Corp. v. Bruinswick Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • September 15, 1999
    ... ... CONCORD BOAT CORPORATION; GALAXIE BOAT WORKS, INC.; SEA ARROW MARINE, INC.; MARIAH BOATS, INC.; HARRIS KAYOT, ... 1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1111 (1982)); see also Green v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 692 F.2d 1153, 1157 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Agriculture and Food Handbook
    • January 1, 2019
    ...Inc., 665 F.2d 24 (2d Cir. 1981), 13 Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. FTC, 440 U.S. 69 (1979), 80 Green v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 692 F.2d 1153 (8th Cir. 1982), 116 Gregory v. Fort Bridger Rendezvous Ass’n, 448 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2006), 116 In re Grice, 79 F. 627 (N.D. Tex. 1897), 1......
  • The Capper-Volstead Act and Defenses
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Agriculture and Food Handbook
    • January 1, 2019
    ...Cir. 2003) ; see also Gregory v. Fort Bridger Rendezvous Ass’n, 448 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2006); Green v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 692 F.2d 1153, 1157 (8th Cir. 1982). But see In re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., 621 F. Supp. 2d at 291 (cooperative not permitted to retai......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT