Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp.

Citation4 F.3d 1153
Decision Date10 September 1993
Docket NumberNos. 92-5476,92-5543,s. 92-5476
Parties, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 8379, 38 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 902 LIGHTNING LUBE, INC.; Laser Lube, a New Jersey Corporation v. WITCO CORPORATION; Avis Service, Inc.; Avis Lube, Inc.; Avis Enterprises, Inc., Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs, v. Ralph VENUTO, individually and d/b/a Laser Lube, Lightning Lube, and Automotive Management Systems; Carol Venuto, his wife, individually; Automotive Management Systems, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Third Party Defendants, Witco Corporation, Appellant. LIGHTNING LUBE, INC.; Laser Lube, a New Jersey Corporation v. WITCO CORPORATION; Avis Service, Inc.; Avis Lube, Inc.; Avis Enterprises, Inc., Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs, v. Ralph VENUTO, individually and d/b/a Laser Lube, Lightning Lube, and Automotive Management Systems; Carol Venuto, his wife, individually; Automotive Management Systems, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Third Party Defendants, Lightning Lube, Inc., t/a Laser Lube, Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

Ronald S. Rolfe (argued), Lewis J. Liman, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, Brendan T. Byrne, John G. Gilfillan, III, Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi & Stewart, Roseland, NJ, for appellant-cross-appellee Witco Corp.

Laurence H. Tribe (argued), Jonathan S. Massey (argued), Cambridge, MA, Steven M. Kramer, Jeffrey S. Nowak, New York City, for appellee-cross-appellant Lightning Lube, Inc.

BEFORE: MANSMANN, GREENBERG, and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.

                OPINION OF THE COURT
                GREENBERG, Circuit Judge
                                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
                         PAGE
                  I.  BACKGROUND                                                           1162
                      A.       FACTUAL HISTORY                                             1162
                      B.       PROCEDURAL HISTORY                                          1165
                 II.  STANDARD OF REVIEW                                                   1166
                III.  WITCO'S APPEAL                                                       1167
                      A.       TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE                                       1167
                      B.       BREACH OF CONTRACT                                          1172
                      C.       COMPENSATORY DAMAGES                                        1174
                               1.  Fed.R.Evid. 701                                         1175
                               2.  Damages not Proven with Reasonable Certainty            1176
                      D.       MISCONDUCT BY LIGHTNING LUBE'S COUNSEL                      1178
                               1.  Mistrial                                                1178
                               2.  Refusal to Allow Kramer to Testify                      1180
                               3.  Limiting the Witnesses' Testimony                       1180
                               4.  General Prejudice Claim                                 1181
                 IV.  LIGHTNING LUBE'S CROSSAPPEAL                                         1182
                      A.       FRAUD                                                       1182
                               1.  Nondisclosure of Intent to Compete                      1183
                               2.  Misrepresentation of Intent to Fulfill the Contract     1186
                      B.       RICO                                                        1187
                               1.  Section 1962(a)                                         1187
                               2.  Section 1962(b)                                         1189
                               3.  Section 1962(c)                                         1191
                               4.  Section 1962(d)                                         1191
                      C.       PUNITIVE DAMAGES                                            1192
                               1.  Ratification or Authorization                           1193
                               2.  Payback Schedule                                        1194
                               3.  CoverUp                                                 1194
                               4.  WitcoAvis Venture                                       1194
                               5.  Credit Hold                                             1195
                               6.  Source of Oil Fraud                                     1195
                               7.  Glady's Activities                                      1196
                               8.  Counterclaim                                            1196
                  V.  CONCLUSION                                                           1200
                

These appeals arise from a civil action brought in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in which a quick-lube franchisor, Lightning Lube, Inc. t/a Laser Lube (Lightning Lube), obtained a jury verdict for approximately $11.5 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages against its motor oil supplier, Witco Corporation (Witco). Lightning Lube accused Witco of breaching its supply agreement and destroying Lightning Lube's relationship with its franchisees to benefit a competing quick-lube business that Witco had started with Avis Services, Inc. (Avis). Witco's actions allegedly caused Lightning Lube's existing franchisees either to abandon it or to hold back payment of royalty fees and resulted in large numbers of prospective franchisees never opening Lightning Lube centers. As a result, Lightning Lube lacked the cash flow necessary to continue operating and its owner, Ralph Venuto, was forced to sell its assets to another company for far less than their true worth.

Lightning Lube asserted six claims against Witco, but at the end of the trial, only four remained in the case: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud and misrepresentation; (3) intentional interference with contracts and prospective contractual advantage; and (4) punitive damages. At the conclusion of a three-month trial, the jury returned a verdict of liability on all four counts, though not on every claim within each count. The jury, however, found in favor of Witco on counterclaims to recover payment for unpaid charges for equipment and oil. Thereafter Witco moved for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The district court granted the motion in part and denied it in part in a comprehensive opinion dated September 2, 1992. See Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 802 F.Supp. 1180 (D.N.J.1992). In its opinion, the district court granted judgment and, alternatively, a new trial, on two of the fraud claims on which separate verdicts for $1.0 million each had been returned and on the punitive damages claims, but denied Witco judgment or a new trial on Lightning Lube's third fraud claim, on which no damages had been awarded, and on Lightning Lube's claims of tortious interference with economic relations and breach of contract. The court, therefore, left intact approximately $9.5 million of the approximately $61.5 million that the jury originally had awarded to Lightning Lube.

Witco now appeals from the district court's order of September 2, 1992, to the extent it denied Witco's motion as to the tortious interference and breach of contract claims. Lightning Lube cross-appeals from the district court's grant of judgment and a conditional new trial to Witco on Lightning Lube's fraud and punitive damages claims. It also appeals from the district court's pretrial order of February 19, 1991, granting summary judgment to Witco on Lightning Lube's RICO claims. 1 For the reasons discussed below we will affirm the district court's orders in their entirety.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. The district court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331 (the RICO claims) and 1332 (all other claims). The parties are in agreement that New Jersey law governs the state law claims.

I. BACKGROUND
A. FACTUAL HISTORY

To the extent that the facts at trial were in dispute we state them in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, i.e, Lightning Lube on the complaint and Witco on its counterclaim for nonpayment for equipment and oil. From late 1985 until 1989, Lightning Lube was a quick-lube franchisor. Consumers go to a quick-lube center to have oil changes and related services performed on their vehicles in approximately ten minutes. As part of its franchise agreements, Lightning Lube agreed to provide oil, equipment, site-selection assistance, training, and marketing assistance to its franchisees in exchange for royalty and advertising fees. Lightning Lube grew out of the business of third-party defendant Automotive Management Systems, Inc., a franchisor of transmission and brake and muffler facilities run by the third-party defendant Ralph Venuto. Venuto and another person founded Lightning Lube in 1985, but in June 1986, Venuto bought out his partner's interest, and became the sole owner of the company.

From June 1986 to August 1987, Witco, 2 through a division called Kendall Refining Company, 3 sold motor oil to Lightning Lube and provided Lightning Lube franchisees with oil dispensing equipment. The Kendall division refines petroleum from its own wells and from other sources for use as automotive motor oil. Witco instituted a program for quick-lube national accounts and independent quick-lube operators, whose participants could purchase Kendall oil at a discount. Under this program, Witco would supply a quick-lube operator with lubrication dispensing equipment on loan, free of charge, on the condition that the operator sold Kendall oil through the equipment in a specified minimum quantity. Witco could repossess the equipment if the operator did not adhere to the minimum-use requirement.

In April and May 1986, Ralph Venuto met with representatives of Witco to discuss the possibility of Lightning Lube becoming a Witco quick-lube national account. At these meetings Venuto inquired whether Witco, in a departure from the industry norm, would consider loaning Lightning Lube money to purchase the lube equipment instead of loaning Lightning Lube the equipment itself. Venuto desired to buy his own equipment because he did not want...

To continue reading

Request your trial
994 cases
  • Yucaipa Am. Alliance Fund I, L.P. v. Ehrlich
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • September 2, 2016
    ...Because plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under § 1962(c), the conspiracy claim must fail as well. See Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp. , 4 F.3d 1153, 1191 (3d Cir.1993) ("Any claim under section 1962(d) based on a conspiracy to violate the other subsections of section 1962 must ne......
  • Charleswell v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands
    • February 27, 2004
    ...defendant invested that money in an enterprise, and (3) that the enterprise affected interstate commerce. See Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153, 1188 (3d Cir. 1993). Plaintiffs must also allege that their injury resulted from defendants' use or investment of racketeering Brit......
  • Highlands Physicians, Inc. v. Wellmont Health Sys.
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • September 25, 2020
    ...without the necessity of qualifying the witness as an accountant, appraiser, or similar expert. See, e.g.,Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp. , 4 F.3d 1153 (3d Cir. 1993) (no abuse of discretion in permitting the plaintiff's owner to give lay opinion testimony as to damages, as it was based......
  • In re Biogen 755 Patent Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • September 7, 2018
    ...inference, there is insufficient evidence from which a jury reasonably could find" for the nonmovant. Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp. , 4 F.3d 1153, 1166 (3d Cir. 1993) (citing Wittekamp v. Gulf & Western Inc. , 991 F.2d 1137, 1141 (3d Cir. 1993) ). "The question is not whether there is......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 books & journal articles
  • Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 49 No. 2, March 2012
    • March 22, 2012
    ...in, or control of, an enterprise through (or by way of) the pattern of racketeering activity."); Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153, 1190-91 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding that plaintiff failed to assert a claim under 18 U.S.C. [section] 1962(b) by falling "to allege a specific nexus......
  • Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 51 No. 4, September 2014
    • September 22, 2014
    ...in, or control of, an enterprise through (or by way of) the pattern of racketeering activity."); Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153, 1190-91 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding that plaintiff failed to assert a claim under 18 U.S.C. [section] 1962(b) by failing "to allege a specific nexus......
  • Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 45 No. 2, March 2008
    • March 22, 2008
    ...an enterprise through (or by way of) the pattern of racketeering activity) (emphasis in original); Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153, 1190-91 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding that plaintiff failed to assert a claim under 18 U.S.C. [section] 1962(b) by failing "to allege a specific nex......
  • Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 42 No. 2, March 2005
    • March 22, 2005
    ...pattern of racketeering activity, interest in enterprise affecting interstate commerce). But see Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153, 1188 (3d Cir. 1993) ("[U]se and investment of racketeering income [which] keeps the defendant alive so that it may continue to injure plaintiff-......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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