Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc. v. Fiat Distributors, Inc.
Citation | 637 F.2d 1376 |
Decision Date | 02 March 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 79-4003,79-4003 |
Parties | 1980-81 Trade Cases 63,854 RON TONKIN GRAN TURISMO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIAT DISTRIBUTORS, INC., and Wakehouse Motors, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Roger Tilbury, Portland, Or., argued for plaintiff-appellant; Carlton R. Reiter, Portland, Or., on brief.
James H. Clarke, Dezendorf, Spears, Lubersky, Campbell & Bledsoe, Andrew P. Kerr, Gilbertson, Brownstein, Sweeney, Kerr & Grim, Portland, Or., argued for defendants-appellees; John R. Gilbertson, Wayne Hilliard, Portland, Or., on brief.
Appeal from the United States District Court, District of Oregon.
Before VAN DUSEN, * KILKENNY and HUG, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, on November 26, 1975, brought this antitrust action against Fiat Distributors, Inc. (FDI) and Wakehouse Motors, Inc. (Wakehouse) alleging violations of Sherman Act §§ 1 and 2 and Clayton Act § 3. Appellant is a dealer in foreign cars in Portland. FDI is the United States distributor of Fiat automobiles and Wakehouse is the only Fiat dealer in the Portland area. 1
This action was instituted after appellant's unsuccessful attempt to become the second Fiat dealer in the Portland area.
The case was referred to a magistrate who found that appellant's complaint included the following claims: (1) monopoly; (2) attempt to monopolize; (3) conspiracy to monopolize; (4) tying arrangements; (5) group refusal to deal; and (6) price fixing. Both appellees moved for summary judgment on all issues. On January 25, 1978, the magistrate, in his findings and recommendations, concluded that both appellees were entitled to summary judgment on all issues. Appellant filed objections to the magistrate's findings and recommendations and the district court judge, after a de novo review, entered an order on December 4, 1978, which affirmed the magistrate's findings and recommendations and dismissed the action. This appeal followed. We affirm.
This controversy centers upon the rejection of appellant's application for a Fiat dealership. After a period of preliminary discussion and preparation, 2 a Fiat franchise application was signed on October 18, 1974. Appellant ordered cars and parts and gave Fiat a check for $32,493.95. The application clearly states that no binding agreement was created. The application, in order to be final, required home office approval. Appellant's check was returned on November 25, 1974. The application was not approved.
Appellant contends that the dealership arrangement would have been consummated but for the intervention of Wakehouse. 3 After learning of appellant's impending appointment, a representative of Wakehouse made a trip to Fiat's national headquarters on October 21, 1974. Appellant characterizes this visit as an attempt on the part of Wakehouse to protect its position as the sole Fiat dealer in the Portland area, and asserts that Wakehouse prevailed upon Fiat to reject the application for a new dealer. These facts allegedly support the existence of an agreement between FDI and Wakehouse to exclude a competitor of Wakehouse, and appellant maintains that this arrangement constitutes a per se violation of the antitrust laws.
Appellant maintains that the result of Wakehouse's exercise of "veto" power over the appointment of a new dealer has not been good "for Fiat, for customers, for competition in general, and certainly not for Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo." The negative impact on competition is premised upon appellant's assertion that Wakehouse has a monopoly in the relevant product and geographic market. The relevant market is defined as Fiat cars, parts, service and warranty work in the Portland area. Appellant's definition of the relevant market is based on its unsubstantiated belief that for a sizeable number of customers only a Fiat will do. Because Fiats, in appellant's opinion, constitute a separate market, Wakehouse's position as the sole dealer in the Portland area allows it an unrestrained power to exact exorbitant profits in its sales of Fiat cars, parts, service and warranty FDI contends that this litigation "is a bold attempt by an auto dealer to muscle his way into Fiat's dealer organization through abusive and meritless litigation." The evidence, in FDI's view, indicates that FDI, at the request of a local dealer with unsatisfactory sales, refrained from deciding whether to appoint an additional dealer while the existing dealer attempted to increase sales. FDI explains that it gave Wakehouse two 90-day probationary periods, ending in June, 1975, in which to increase sales. The possibility of an additional dealer was used to stimulate Wakehouse to improve its sales efforts. Wakehouse reached the targets FDI had set and the question of appointing appellant was dropped. FDI contends that this conduct by a small distributor at the behest of a single dealer in a market dominated by competitive brands does not violate Section 1, and that it was entitled to summary judgment.
work. Appellant continually claims that, as a result of this alleged monopoly position, Wakehouse's profit margins have been excessively high.
It is clear that FDI has a different conception of the relevant market. FDI maintains that the market is much broader than simply Fiat cars. FDI asserts that there are many competing types of automobiles. In fact, appellant acknowledges this on many occasions. FDI asserts that foreign cars constitute the principal competition. Fiat's share of the foreign car market in Portland was between 2.48%-3.51% from 1972-1974 and it rose to 5.2% in 1975. Its percentage of total car registration varied from .61%-1.87%.
In the course of the Fiat dealership application process, Fiat allegedly insisted that appellant divest itself of two competing lines of automobiles (Honda and Saab) before the franchise would be granted. Appellant maintains that it
FDI's response to this argument is simply stated: "The baselessness of this litigation is illustrated by GT's charge that Fiat imposed upon it an unlawful 'tying' or exclusive dealing arrangement, based on a statement of a Fiat representative that he did not want Hondas and Saabs to be sold from the same location as Fiats." Aside from the legal obstacles to appellant's assertion of a colorable claim of an illegal tying or exclusive dealing arrangement, FDI notes several factual problems: (1) appellant could never secure permission from Honda or Saab to sell their cars from Tonkin's SW Morrison Street store (the location of the prospective Fiat dealership); (2) appellant did not "surrender" Honda, but transferred it to his Chevrolet agency; and (3) the Saab franchise was terminated because the distributor was understandably upset over appellant's miserable sales performance.
The magistrate also granted summary judgment with respect to appellant's tying arrangement allegation. The magistrate cited a number of factors which led him to conclude that appellant's allegation that FDI demanded that it divest itself of its Honda and Saab dealership did not remotely suggest the existence of a tying arrangement. Most simply, the magistrate concluded that "Plaintiff simply fails to show the existence of two separate products."
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ralph C. Wilson Indus. v. American Broadcasting
...Corp., 693 F.2d 870 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1085, 103 S.Ct. 1777, 76 L.Ed.2d 349 (1983); Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc. v. Fiat Distributors, Inc., 637 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 831, 102 S.Ct. 128, 70 L.Ed.2d 109 Despite the fact that plaintiff has produced ......
-
Roland Machinery Co. v. Dresser Industries, Inc.
...an agreement (which is a prerequisite to liability under section 3 of the Clayton Act, see, e.g., Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc. v. Fiat Distributors, Inc., 637 F.2d 1376, 1389 (9th Cir.1981), and cases cited there), the judge considered whether Roland had raised a "substantial question" as ......
-
Zoslaw v. MCA Distributing Corp.
...458 (1962). See Program Engineering v. Triangle Publications, 634 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir.1980); Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo v. Fiat Distributors, 637 F.2d 1376, 1381 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 831, 102 S.Ct. 128, 70 L.Ed.2d 109 (1981). However, the Court has also indicated that cl......
-
A. H. Cox & Co. v. Star Machinery Co.
...L.Ed.2d 568 (1977); United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300, 39 S.Ct. 465, 63 L.Ed. 992 (1919); Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc. v. Fiat Distributors, Inc., 637 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1981). Judicial deference to the manufacturer's business judgment is grounded in large part on the assumptio......
-
Vertical Restraints
...978 F.2d at 110; Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., 749 F.2d 380, 392 (7th Cir. 1984); Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc. v. Fiat Distribs., 637 F.2d 1376, 1389 (9th Cir. 1981). the exclusionary conduct has an anticompetitive effect. 90 For example, as to the latter two requirements, in United ......
-
Table of Cases
...Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., 749 F.2d 380 (7th Cir. 1984), 5, 117, 118, 120, 122, 123 Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc. v. Fiat Distribs., 637 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1981), 105 208 Antitrust Handbook for Franchise and Distribution Practitioners Rose Confections, Inc. v. Ambrosia Chocolate Co., 816......
-
Table of Cases
...Co. v. Dresser Indus., 749 F.2d 380 (7th Cir. 1984), 157, 158, 160, 161, 279, 283, 284 Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc. v. Fiat Distribs., 637 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1981), 158 S S&S Commc’ns v. Local Exch. Carriers Ass’n, 2006 WL 519651 (D.S.D. 2006), 61 Sambreel Holdings LLC v. Facebook, Inc., ......
-
Table of Cases
...47, 1119, 1126 Rong v. Liaoning Provincial Gov’t, 362 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D.D.C. 2005), 1328 Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc. v. Fiat Distribs., 637 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1981), 58, 166, 170, 188 Roofire Alarm Co. v. Royal Indem. Co., 313 F.2d 635 (6th Cir. 1963), 120 Rooney v. Medical Ctr. Hosp., 1......