In re Mid-Atlantic Toyota Antitrust Litigation
Decision Date | 04 April 1983 |
Docket Number | Y-81-805,Y-81-1880,MDL-456. Civ. A. No. Y-80-3238,Y-81-806 and Y-81-2954.,Y-81-726,Y-81-650,Y-82-479 |
Citation | 560 F. Supp. 760 |
Parties | In re MID-ATLANTIC TOYOTA ANTITRUST LITIGATION. STATE OF MARYLAND ex rel. SACHS v. MID-ATLANTIC TOYOTA DISTRIBUTORS, INC., et al. STATE OF DELAWARE ex rel. GEBELEIN v. MID-ATLANTIC TOYOTA DISTRIBUTORS, INC., et al. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA ex rel. BROWNING v. MID-ATLANTIC TOYOTA DISTRIBUTORS, INC., et al. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ex rel. ROGERS v. MID-ATLANTIC TOYOTA DISTRIBUTORS, INC., et al. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA on its own Behalf and as Parens Patriae v. MID-ATLANTIC TOYOTA DISTRIBUTORS, INC., et al. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA v. MID-ATLANTIC TOYOTA DISTRIBUTORS, INC., et al. Daniel E. GOLUB, et al. v. MID-ATLANTIC TOYOTA DISTRIBUTORS, INC., et al. Wallace H. JOHNSTON, Jr., et al. v. MID-ATLANTIC TOYOTA DISTRIBUTORS, INC., et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen. for the State of Md., Baltimore, Md., Charles O. Monk, II, and Michael F. Brockmeyer, Asst. Attys. Gen., Baltimore, Md., liaison counsel for plaintiffs.
Raymond W. Bergan, Scott B. Harris, and William J. Murphy, Washington, D.C., liaison counsel for defendants.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated the eight above-captioned actions for pretrial purposes and assigned them to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1407(a) (1976). These lawsuits include six actions brought by the Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia and the attorneys general of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia on behalf of their respective citizenry under the parens patriae provisions of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. ?? 15c-15h (1976),1 and two private treble damage antitrust actions asserted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. ? 15 (Supp. V 1981).2 All eight actions commonly allege violations of ? 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. ? 1 (1976), by the regional Toyota distributor for the mid-Atlantic states and various local Toyota dealers within the distributor's region.3 Plaintiffs in all actions have named three common defendants (hereafter "Weisman defendants"): the distributor, Mid-Atlantic Toyota Distributors, Inc. (hereafter "MAT"), its corporate affiliate, Carecraft Industries, Ltd. (hereafter "Carecraft"), and the controlling individual behind both entities, Frederick R. Weisman (hereafter "Weisman"). Individual dealers comprise all of the remaining defendants in each action and appear only in those suits appropriate to their respective geographic locations.
The Court currently has before it numerous defense motions for summary judgment.4 After a full round of briefing, the Court heard oral argument on the motions on October 28, 1982. The Court subsequently concluded that it needed certain additional information for full consideration of the issues raised, and the parties promptly provided the Court with appropriate stipulations as well as supplemental memoranda commenting on the legal significance of the submitted information. After careful consideration of the extensive record in this litigation, the Court grants the defendants' motions to a limited extent and enters partial summary judgment in their favor on all claims grounded upon the so-called "Double Value Days" program. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d). The Court denies all other portions of the defense motions, but reviews certain principles of law which will govern the remainder of this litigation. In particular, the determination of ? 1 liability may proceed under a "per se" standard, although not in the precise manner the plaintiffs have argued for. A fuller exposition of the scope of and basis for these rulings follows.
Summary judgment is ordinarily appropriate when:
the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The Fourth Circuit has amply elaborated upon this standard in an opinion which merits quotation at length:
Phoenix Savings and Loan, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 381 F.2d 245, 249 (4th Cir.1967).
In light of this strict standard, it is not surprising that some courts have traditionally demonstrated a marked reluctance towards summary disposition of complex antitrust cases. See, e.g., Norfolk Monument Co., Inc. v. Woodlawn Memorial Gardens, Inc., 394 U.S. 700, 704, 89 S.Ct. 1391, 1393, 22 L.Ed.2d 658 (1969); Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 473, 82 S.Ct. 486, 491, 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1962); Morrison v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 601 F.2d 139, 141-42 (4th Cir.1979). See generally 10A C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure ? 2732.1 at 313-31 (2nd Ed.1983). As Justice Clark said for the majority in Poller:
summary procedures should be used sparingly in complex antitrust litigation where motive and intent play leading roles, the proof is largely in the hands of the alleged conspirators, and hostile witnesses thicken the plot. It is only when the witnesses are present and subject to cross-examination that their credibility and the weight to be given their testimony can be appraised. Trial by affidavit is no substitute for trial by jury. * * *
Poller, 368 U.S. at 473, 82 S.Ct. at 491. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has indicated that some limits exist upon this judicial reluctance:
To the extent that petitioner's argument can be interpreted to suggest that Rule 56(e) should, in effect, be read out of antitrust cases and permit plaintiffs to get to a jury on the basis of the allegations in their complaints, coupled with the hope that something can be developed at trial in the way of evidence to support these allegations, we decline to accept it. While we recognize the importance of preserving litigants' rights to a trial on their claims, we are not prepared to extend those rights to the point of requiring that anyone who files an antitrust complaint setting forth a valid cause of action be entitled to a full-dress trial notwithstanding the absence of any significant probative evidence to support the complaint.
First National Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289-90, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 1592-93, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968). Accord National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc. v. National Constructors Association, 678 F.2d 492, 497 (4th Cir.1982). See generally 2 P. Areeda & D. Turner, Antitrust Law ? 316 (1978) (. broader appropriateness of summary judgment) Nevertheless, summary disposition remains a highly elusive goal in cases such as the present one which contain allegations of ? 1 conspiracy dependent upon divination of subjective intent. Neel v. Waldrop, 639 F.2d 1080, 1084 (4th Cir.1981).
This case centers around the antitrust implications of two sets of multiple individual agreements between MAT and its dealers regarding a package of accessories for 1980 model Toyotas. Featuring "Polyglycoat" brand sealant products, the package of accessories (hereafter "protective package") included rustproof shielding, paint sealant, interior (textile or vinyl) sealant, souldshielding (undercoating), and membership in the "Cross Country Motor Club."6
The parties do not dispute the facial elements of the individual contracts within each set of agreements. In the first group of agreements, solicited by MAT under its "Total Concept Protective Program" (hereafter "Total Concept Program"), each dealer individually contracted with MAT to have the protective package applied to all of the 1980 Toyotas the dealer ordered, at a cost to the dealer of $113.90.7 The protective package on cars furnished under the Total Concept Program had a suggested retail...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. AKZO, NV
...do not say otherwise. The essence of concerted activity is agreement, whether explicit or implicit. See In re Mid-Atlantic Toyota Antitrust Litigation, 560 F.Supp. 760 (D.Md. 1983).17 Mylan need not show that each alleged conspirator had knowledge of all of the details of the conspiracy, Un......
-
Hall v. United Air Lines, Inc.
... ... claims, exclude evidence, and preclude relief barred by prior litigation (D.E.# 599); ... Page 657 ... E. a motion by defendant ... by plaintiffs for partial summary judgment on the issue of antitrust immunity with regard to Northwest and KLM (D.E.# 621); and ... market behavior which underlie our antitrust laws." In re Mid-Atlantic Toyota ... Page 676 ... Antitrust Litig., 560 F.Supp. 760, 786 ... ...
-
State v. Jonathan Logan, Inc.
...price-fixing cases the amount of the overcharge is usually the measure of actual damages. See, e.g., In re Mid-Atlantic Toyota Antitrust Litigation, 560 F.Supp. 760, 785 (D.Md.1983); Desiderio, Private Treble Damage Antitrust Actions: An Outline of Fundamental Principles, 48 Brooklyn L.Rev.......
-
In re Mid-Atlantic Toyota Antitrust Litigation, MDL-456. Civ. A. No. Y-80-3238
...patriae actions, 15 U.S.C. § 15c, and two private treble damage actions, 15 U.S.C. § 15. See generally In Re Mid-Atlantic Toyota Antitrust Litigation, 560 F.Supp. 760 (D.Md.1983). All plaintiffs and several defendants have submitted a proposed settlement ("the Settlement") to the Court for ......
-
James A. Janaitis, Bankruptcy Collides With Antitrust: the Need for a Prohibition Against Using Sec. 1110 Protections Collectively
...1001, 1006-09 (Or. Ct. App. 1985) (equating credit terms to price in a state antitrust case.); In re Mid-Atl. Toyota Antitrust Litig., 560 F. Supp. 760, 783 (D. Md. 1983) ("In summary, plaintiffs will have established a per se violation of the Sherman Act if they prove that the defendants t......