Michigan Div.-Monument Builders v. Michigan Cemet. Assoc.
| Citation | 458 F.Supp.2d 474 |
| Decision Date | 27 October 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:05-CV-74721.,2:05-CV-74721. |
| Parties | MICHIGAN DIVISION—MONUMENT BUILDERS OF NORTH AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHIGAN CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Barbara H. Kramer, Kramer and Kramer, David A. Nacht, Nacht Assoc., Ann Arbor, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Frederick R. Juckniess, Gregory L. Curtner, Miller, Canfield, Andrew J. McGuinness, Dykema Gossett, Roger L. Myers, Howard & Howard, Ann Arbor, MI, Larry J. Saylor, Miller, Canfield, Timothy J. Jordan, Garan Lucow, Detroit, MI, Sherry L. Katz-Crank, Corporate Legal Counsel, East Lansing, MI, L. David Lawson Winegarden, Haley, Robert D. Goldstein, Garan Lucow, Grand Blanc, MI, Howard B. Iwrey, Dykema Gossett, Bloomfield Hills, MI, Roger A. Smith, Garan Lucow, Troy, MI, Jay W. Tower, Bingham Farms, MI, Thomas G. Cardelli, Cardelli, Hebert, Royal Oak, MI, for Defendants.
On December 13, 2005, Plaintiffs filed this purported class action, asserting antitrust claims under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and state law claims under Michigan's Prepaid Funeral and Cemetery Sales Act, M.C.L. § 328.225. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on August 30, 2006. The matter is currently before the Court on multiple motions to dismiss brought by Defendants pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6). The parties have fully briefed the issues and the Court heard oral argument on October 12, 2006. For the reasons set forth below, the Court shall grant Defendants' motions and dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint.
In this action, a trade association of monument dealers proposes to represent a plaintiff class of independent monument sellers in Michigan against a defendant class of all cemeteries located in Michigan. In addition, three individual plaintiffs bring the same claims on their own behalf against 21 named defendants. This Court has jurisdiction over this case based upon federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The federal claims in this action are antitrust claims under the Sherman Act, in which Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Act by engaging in illegal tying arrangements and by conspiring to do so. Plaintiffs also assert state law claims based upon a Michigan statute relating to the provision of cemetery and funeral services.
There are four named Plaintiffs in the Second Amended Complaint: 1) Michigan Division—Monument Builders of North America ("Michigan Monument Builders"); 2) DWWD, Inc. d/b/a Simpson Granite ("Simpson Granite"); 3) Jackson Monuments Works, LLC ("Jackson Monuments"); and 4) Arnet's Inc. ("Arnets"). Plaintiff Michigan Monument Builders is a nonprofit trade association whose members include monument retailers located in Michigan. It is not suing in its own capacity, but rather, is suing in a representative capacity on behalf of more than 45 independent monument retailers located in Michigan in this purported class action. The remaining 3 Plaintiffs (Simpson Granite, Jackson Monuments, and Arnets) are individual monument retailers who assert claims on their own behalf against the named Defendants.
The following 20 entities, that collectively own or operate approximately 50 cemeteries in various counties throughout Michigan, are named as individual Defendants in this action:
1) Detroit Memorial Park Association, which owns or operates 2 cemeteries;
2) Fenton Corporation;
3) Crestwood Memorial Cemetery, Inc.;
4) Dawn Memorial Estates Cemetery, Inc.;
5) Lovedale Memorial Cemetery, Inc.;
6) Tyrone Memory Gardens, Inc.;
7) Mikocem, LLC, which owns or operates 27 cemeteries;
8) Mt. Elliot Cemetery Association, which owns or operates 5 cemeteries;
9) Westlawn Cemetery Association;
10) Arborcrest Memorial Cemetery;
11) Chapel Hill Associates, Inc.,
12) Elmwood Cemetery Association (Detroit);
13) Evergreen Cemetery Association;
14) Glen Eden Lutheran Memorial Park (Livonia);
15) Greenwood Cemetery Association of Vernon, Michigan;
16) Hillcrest Memorial Gardens Association;
17) Knollwood Memorial Park Cemetery Association;
18) Michigan Memorial Park, Inc.;
19) Oakridge Cemetery (Flat Rock); and
20) White Chapel Memorial Association.
Plaintiffs have also named the Michigan Cemetery Association, a nonprofit corporation comprised of members which own or operate cemeteries in Michigan, as a Defendant. Thus, there are 21 named Defendants. Plaintiffs claim that the Michigan Cemetery Association is "being sued as a co-conspirator in fostering and aiding and abetting the anticompetitive and predatory practices" alleged in the complaint.
Plaintiffs identify the purported defendant class as "all cemeteries located in the State of Michigan and entities that control cemeteries in the State of Michigan." (2d Am. Compl. at ¶ 14).
Although it contains eight separate counts, Plaintiffs's Second Amended Complaint essentially alleges four claims:
1. "Sherman Act, Section 1 Illegal Tying Arrangement:"
In Count I, the three individual Plaintiffs bring this claim against the named Defendants. In addition, in Count V, Michigan Monument Builders, as class representative, brings this claim against all named Defendants and the Defendant Class.
In this claim, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have engaged in 3 different kinds of illegal "tying1 arrangements" in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act: 1) burial plots are tied such that customers who want to buy a plot in a given cemetery must also buy a monument (tombstone, etc.) from the cemetery; 2) burial plots are tied such that customers who want to buy them must also buy installation services for the monument from the cemetery; and 3) burial plots are tied such that consumers who want to buy them must also buy other monument-related services from the cemetery. Thus, Plaintiffs allege that burial plots are the "tying product" and monuments and related items, and installation service for same, are the "tied products." (Compl. at ¶34).
Plaintiffs allege that because of the uniqueness of land, each cemetery constitutes a unique and separate market. (Compl. at ¶28). Plaintiffs allege that "the relevant geographic market is each individual cemetery in the State of Michigan." (Id.).
2. "Sherman Act, Section I Conspiracy to Restrain Competition and Monopolize Trade:"
In Count II, the three individual Plaintiffs bring this claim against the named Defendants. In addition, in Count VI, the class representative brings this claim against all named Defendants and the Defendant Class.
In this claim, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants have engaged in an unlawful continuing contract, combination and conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and monopolize trade in the defined market. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have engaged in or have aided or abetted in illegal tying arrangements in order to force customers who want to buy a burial plot in a given cemetery to buy their monuments and related items from the cemetery and to have the cemetery install them as well.
3. "Sherman Act, Section 2 Conspiracy to Restrain Trade and/or Attempt to Monopolize:"
In Count III, the three individual Plaintiffs bring this claim against the named Defendants. In addition, in Count VII, the class representative brings this claim against all named Defendants and the Defendant Class.
In this claim, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have conspired to monopolize the defined relevant product and geographic market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, based on the same conduct that Plaintiffs believe supports their other conspiracy claim.
4. "Violation of the Michigan Prepaid Funeral and Cemetery Sales Act:"
In Count VI, the three individual Plaintiffs bring this claim against all named Defendants. In Count VIII, the class representative brings this claim against all named Defendants and the Defendant Class. The Michigan Prepaid Funeral and Cemetery Sales Act, M.C.L. § 328.225 sets forth certain restrictions on selling burial plots and related services. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have violated that statute.
Collectively, the 21 named Defendants in this action have filed more than 20 motions seeking to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6). Most of those motions, however, rely on and adopt the motions and briefs filed by other Defendants. In addition, because the Defendants filed their motions to dismiss after Plaintiffs had filed their First Amended Complaint, but before Plaintiffs had filed their Second Amended Complaint, Defendants recently filed motions that simply clarify that they intend to rely on their previous briefing. All of the pending motions to dismiss are ready for decision.
Because Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss ("the Joint Motion") contains grounds for dismissal asserted by all Defendants, and if granted it would render moot the additional grounds raised in the other briefs, the issues addressed in it will be addressed first.
Defendants bring their motions to dismiss pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6). In assessing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must treat all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true. Moon v. Harrison Piping Supply, et al., 465 F.3d 719 (6th Cir.2006)(citing Kostrzewa v. City of Troy, 247 F.3d 633, 638 (6th Cir.2001)). Dismissal is only proper if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to relief. Id. A complaint will survive a motion to dismiss if it "containfs] either direct or inferential allegations with respect to all material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory." Performance Contracting, Inc. v. Seaboard Sur. Co., 163 F.3d 366, 369 (6th Cir.1998).
"The essential elements of a private antitrust claim must be alleged in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC
..., even with respect to unique, nonpatented tying products such as land.14 In Michigan Division-Monument Builders of North America v. Michigan Cemetery Assn ., 458 F. Supp. 2d 474, 476–77 (E.D. Mich. 2006), aff'd, 524 F.3d 726 (6th Cir. 2008), the plaintiffs, a class of independent monument ......
-
In re Restraints
...involved, the geographic market affected, and the time frame of the conspiracy. Compare Mich. Div. Monument Builders of N. Am. v. Mich. Cemetery Ass'n, 458 F. Supp. 2d 474, 480-85 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (dismissing an antitrust conspiracy claim where plaintiffs used the term defendants generical......
-
Milliken & Co. v. CNA Holdings, Inc.
...by any particular defendant ... do not supply facts adequate to show illegality"); Michigan Div.-Monument Build. Of N.A. v. Michigan Cemetery Assoc., 458 F. Supp. 2d 474, 485 (E.D. Mich. 2006), aff'd, 524 F.3d 726, 729 (6th Cir. 2008) ("Plaintiffs cannot escape their burden of alleging that......
-
In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litig.
...conduct undertaken by any particular Defendant is fatal. They direct the Court to Total Benefits, supra, and this Court's decision in Mich. Div. - Monument Builders of N.Am. v. Mich. Cemetery Ass'n, 458 F.Supp.2d 474, 485 (E.D. Mich. 2006). In response, IP Plaintiffs assert that the Court s......
-
Table of Cases
...aff'd, 1996-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 71,509 (4th Cir. 1996), 82 Table of Cases 233 Monument Builders of N. Am. v. Mich. Cemetery Ass’n, 458 F. Supp. 2d 474 (E.D. Mich. 2006), 28 Moraine Prods. v. ICI Am., 538 F.2d 134 (7th Cir. 1976), 103 Morris Communs. Corp. v. PGA Tour, 364 F.3d 1288 (11th C......
-
General Principles of the Guidelines
...required plaintiff to enter license for multiple stations); Mich. Div. – Monument Builders of N. Am. v. Mich. Cemetery Ass’n, 458 F. Supp. 2d 474 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (finding uniqueness of land insufficient to establish market power in arrangement tying burial plots to monuments and monument-......