Oak Distributing Co. v. Miller Brewing Company
Decision Date | 30 November 1973 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 39717. |
Citation | 370 F. Supp. 889 |
Parties | OAK DISTRIBUTING CO. et al., Plaintiffs, v. MILLER BREWING COMPANY, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
John L. Cote, Willingham, Coté, Hanslovsky, Griffith & Foresman, P. C., East Lansing, Mich., for plaintiffs.
John A. Krsul, Jr., Dickinson, Wright, McKean & Cudlip, Detroit, Mich., for defendant
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This civil action has been brought pursuant to Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 15) to recover treble damages for alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2), and the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 12 et seq.). Plaintiffs have also included a count in their complaint, as amended, for breach of contract, and have also alleged violations of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and unspecified laws of the State of Michigan.
Defendant Miller Brewing Company ("Miller") has brought this motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the Court now considers this a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Miller is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Wisconsin, and has its principal place of business in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
The Plaintiffs, Oak Distributing Company, Greater Macomb Beer and Wine Distributors, Ecko Beer Distributing and Supply, Inc., and Kolb Sales Co., are corporations organized pursuant to the laws of the State of Michigan, with their principal offices located, respectively, in the Counties of Oakland, Macomb, and Wayne, State of Michigan.
On June 29, 1972, Miller entered into an agreement with Meister Brau, Inc., a Delaware corporation. Under the said agreement, Miller purchased certain of the assets of Meister Brau, Inc. The relevant portions of that agreement provide:
Miller thereafter sent a letter dated June 30, 1972, to each of the 36 distributors of Meister Brau, Inc., including the plaintiffs, informing them of the non-assumption of Meister Brau, Inc.'s obligations by Miller. This letter also offered each distributor an opportunity to sell Miller beer, under an arrangement which could be terminated by either party at any time.
Of the thirty-six (36) distributors who were sent such a letter, eighteen (18) of those who accepted Miller's offer by returning the letter continue to this day to sell Miller beer. Eight (8) did not return the letter and, therefore, had no relationship with Miller. The remaining ten (10) who accepted Miller's offer by returning the letter were subsequently terminated by Miller as distributors, including the plaintiffs here, who were each terminated by notice dated September 22, 1972. Miller replaced the terminated distributors with other distributors who were properly licensed to distribute beer in Michigan (Dunn affidavit). As stated before, plaintiffs accepted Miller's offer, and continued to distribute the brands of beer previously supplied by Meister Brau until they were terminated by Miller on September 22, 1972.
Miller's share of the beer market in Michigan was 2.05% in 1971 and 2.51% in 1972. Based upon such percentages, Miller was the 11th ranking beer company in Michigan in terms of beer shipments in 1971 and the 9th ranking company in Michigan in terms of beer shipments in 1972 (Dunn affidavit).
In Count III of their amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that Miller has violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The alleged violations appear at III(2) as follows:
The law is clear that the allegations put forth by plaintiffs in no way constitute a violation of the antitrust laws, particularly Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
In essence, plaintiffs allege that Miller terminated its contractual relationships with them in favor of contractual relationships with other distributors. This is readily admitted by Miller. Plaintiffs further allege a refusal to deal by Miller. This is also admitted. Nevertheless, it is clear that such conduct by Miller is not forbidden by the antitrust laws.
In United States v. Colgate Co., 250 U.S. 300 at p. 307, 39 S.Ct. 465 at p. 468, 63 L.Ed. 992 (1919), the United States Supreme Court held:
"In the absence of any purpose to create or maintain a monopoly, the Sherman act does not restrict the long recognized right of trader or manufacturer engaged in an entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal."
In Ace Beer Distributors, Inc. v. Kohn, Inc., 318 F.2d 283 (6th Cir. 1963), cert. den. 375 U.S. 922, 84 S.Ct. 267, 11 L.Ed.2d 166 (1963), the complainant alleged that the defendants conspired to destroy plaintiff's business and to eliminate it as a beer distributor in interstate commerce, and "that this result was accomplished by the termination by Stroh of plaintiff's franchise as its beer distributor and thereafter conducting its business through another distributor" (318 F.2d at 286). In affirming the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint in which violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act were alleged, the court held, at p. 286, as follows:
The Court notes that each of the plaintiffs have spiced their affidavits with a short and vary vague allegation of price fixing. However, nothing specific has been submitted which would support these naked allegations.
In Ricchetti v. Meister Brau, Inc., 431 F.2d 1211 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. den. 401 U.S. 939, 91 S.Ct. 934, 28 L.Ed.2d 219 (1971), Meister Brau, Inc. had purchased the assets of the Burgermeister Brewing Company, and thereafter determined not to appoint as distributors of Burgermeister Beer the three...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Turner v. Bituminous Cas. Co.
...may have persuaded the court to look for a way around the general rule.7 Cases finding no assumption are Oak Distributing Co. v. Miller Brewing Co., 370 F.Supp. 889 (E.D.Mich.1973); Kloberdanz v. Joy Manufacturing Co., 288 F.Supp. 817 (D.Colo.1968); Ortiz v. South Bend Lathe, 46 Cal.App.3d ......
-
City Management Corp. v. U.S. Chemical Co., Inc.
...of another corporation merely because the corporation has acquired the assets of that corporation. Oak Distributing Co. v. Miller Brewing Co., 370 F.Supp. 889, 903-04 (E.D.Mich.1973) (citing Clark v. Detroit Curling Club, 298 Mich. 339, 299 N.W. 99, 100 (1941)). Instead, there must be an in......
-
Pain Prevention Lab v. Electronic Waveform Labs
...for disparagement a plaintiff must plead the substance and context of the disparaging statements. See Oak Distributing Co. v. Miller Brewing Co., 370 F.Supp. 889, 898-99 (E.D.Mich.1973) (dismissing disparagement claims brought under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1). Assuming that is a correc......
-
Kaiser v. General Motors Corp.(Pontiac Motor Div.), Civ. A. No. 71-1242.
...S.Ct. at 1593. See, e. g., Chapman v. Rudd Paint & Varnish Co., 409 F.2d 635, 643 (9th Cir. 1969); Oak Distributing Co. v. Miller Brewing Company, 370 F.Supp. 889, 896-97 (E.D.Mich.1973). IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE CASE AT The propriety of summary judgment in the instant suit depends, of c......
-
Should a Trade Secrets Misappropriation Claim Lie in the Procrustean Antitrust Bed?
...(S.D. Ohio 1975); Van Dyke Ford, Inc. U. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.Supp. 277 (E.D. Wis. 1975); Oak Distrib.CO.U. Miller Brewing Co., 370 F.Supp. 889, 898 (E.D. Mich 1973); B&BOil&Chem.CO.U. Franklin OilCorp., 293 F. Supp. 1313 (E.D. Mich 1968).Butsee Metropolitan DryCleaning Mach.CO.U. Washex M......