Santana Products v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment
Citation | 249 F.Supp.2d 463 |
Decision Date | 07 March 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 3:CV-96-1794.,3:CV-96-1794. |
Parties | SANTANA PRODUCTS, INC. Plaintiff v. BOBRICK WASHROOM EQUIPMENT, INC., Bobrick Corporation, the Hornyak Group, Inc., and Vogel Sales Co. Defendants |
Court | United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania |
B.Aaron Schulman, Larson & Taylor, Alexandria, V.A. Gerald J. Butler, Butler & LaBelle, Scranton, P.A. Linda R. Poteate, Larson & Taylor, Alexandria, VA, Paul J. Labelle, Scranton, P.A. Sarah Grace Wittig, William E. Jackson, Larson & Taylor, Alexandria, VA, for Plaintiff.
Carl W. Hittinger, Stevens & Lee, P.C., Philadelphia, P.A. Donald E. Wieand, Jr., Stevens & Lee, Lehigh Valley, PA, Walter F.Casper, J.r., Carbondale, PA, for Defendants.
George A. Reihner, Scranton, PA, Pro se.
On October 1, 1996, plaintiff Santana Products, Inc. (Santana) instituted this action against defendants Bobrick Washroom Equipment and Bobrick Corporation (collectively "Bobrick"), The Hornyak Group, Inc. ("Hornyak"), Vogel Sales Company ("Vogel"), Sylvester & Associates, Ltd., and Fred Sylvester. Santana, which manufactures and sells restroom and toilet partitions made of high density polyethylene ("HDPE"), alleges that Bobrick and other toilet compartment manufacturers conspired to enforce a product standard that had the effect of excluding Santana's HDPE compartments from the relevant market. Specifically, Santana claims that Bobrick along with members of a nowdefunct trade association, the Toilet Partition Manufacturers Council ("TPMC"), collectively embarked on a campaign to convince prospective customers that (1) toilet partitions had to meet fire code flame spread and smoke development requirements for "wall finish"; and (2) HDPE did not meet such requirements. Santana has asserted claims under §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-2; the false advertising provision of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); and the common law tort of intentional interference with prospective contractual relationships.
Following protracted and, at times, acrimonious discovery, the parties filed crossmotions for summary judgment. Santana has filed a partial summary judgment motion on its Sherman Act section 1 claim, (Dkt. Entry 43), and a summary judgment motion as to the defendants' liability under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, (Dkt. Entry 271), while the motions of Bobrick, Hornyak, and Vogel attack all of Santana's claims. (Dkt. Entries 287, 291, 294.)
The motions present several important and difficult issues for which there is no controlling precedent in this Circuit. For example, the defendants contend that their marketing activities directed toward public entities, such as school districts, are shielded from liability under the Noerr/Pennington doctrine. Defendants present this threshold defense not only with respect to the Sherman Act and common law claims, causes of action to which the Noerr/Pennington doctrine is plainly applicable, but also to the Lanham Act claim, an assertion for which there is little case law guidance. Because it is clear that the overwhelming bulk of the toilet partition market is directed at public construction, resolution of this issue in defendants' favor would have a significant impact on the scope of Santana's claims; effectively eliminate Hornyak and Vogel as defendants inasmuch as their marketing activities were limited to public institutions; and severely limit Bobrick's liability. Pointing out that Santana is complaining of conduct that occurred seven years before the filing of this action, and that Santana had settled an earlier lawsuit against the members of the TPMC, defendants have also presented a substantial challenge to the timeliness of Santana's claims, especially its Lanham Act cause of action, to which the doctrine of laches applies and for which there is no controlling precedent in this jurisdiction.
Having carefully considered the parties voluminous submissions,1 the comprehensive evidentiary record, and the applicable law, I have concluded that the Noerr/Pennington doctrine is indeed applicable to all of Santana's claims, thereby limiting any recovery to the non-public sector. I have further determined that none of Santana's claims is time-barred, but recovery is limited to violations occurring within the applicable limitations period. In this regard, a four-year limitations period governs the Sherman Act claims, Pennsylvania's six-year limitations period for claims based upon statutory violations controls the Lanham Act claim, and a one year limitations period defines the compensable parameters of the tortious interference claim.
As to the substantive merits of Santana's claims, I have concluded that Hornyak and Vogel, as captive sales representatives of Bobrick, cannot be held liable under section 1 of the Sherman Act. I have further found that the assailed marketing campaign did not constitute an unlawful restraint on trade and that, in any event, Santana has shown no more than a de minimis effect on competition, thus warranting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the Sherman Act § 1 claim. Defendants are also entitled to summary judgment on the § 2 claim because, for essentially the reasons articulated by Judge Mishler in the parallel case of Santana Products, Inc. v. Sylvester & Associates, Ltd., 121 F.Supp.2d 729 (E.D.N.Y. 1999), the "shared monopoly" claim presented by Santana is not cognizable under section 2 of the Sherman Act. Summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the tortious interference claim is warranted because Santana has failed to present evidence of the loss of a prospective contract with a non-public customer within the one-year limitations period. Finally, there are issues of material fact that preclude summary adjudication of the Lanham Act claim.
As a result of these rulings, Santana's claims have been severely limited. In recognition of the fact that appellate court consideration of difficult and close questions prior to any trial may serve the interests of the parties and of judicial economy, that the need for appellate review will not be mooted by further proceedings in this Court, and that there is "no just cause for delay," see Berckeley Inv. Group, Ltd. v. Colkitt, 259 F.3d 135, 140-42 (3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Santana Products v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment
-
Fair Isaac Corp. v. Experian Information Solutions Inc.
... ... that both parties may offer additional scoring products, other than those contemplated by this Agreement and ... Universal Gym Equipment, Inc. v. Atlantic Health & Fitness Products, 229 U.S.P.Q ... Corp., 207 F.3d 1039, 1058 (8th Cir.2000)); Santana Prods. Inc. v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 249 ... ...
-
Doron Precision Systems, Inc. v. Faac, Inc.
... ... Martin, attempted to manufacture and sell similar products, but none of them was able to compete successfully in the ... funds to private entities, because NYCTA gave equipment purchased with public funds to FAAC withotit fair ... Antitrust Litig., 693 F.2d 84, 87 (9th Cir.1982); Santana Prods. Inc. v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 249 ... ...
-
CHURCH v. MAYER LABORATORIES INC.
... ... " for its Japanese-made, ultra-thin latex condom products in 1992. 144, 146. In June 2009, Mayer registered the mark ... Cf. Santana Prods., Inc. v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 249 F ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...918 (7th Cir. 1995), 210 Santa Fe Int’l Corp., In re , 272 F.3d 705 (5th Cir. 2001), 197 Santana Prods. v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., 249 F. Supp. 2d 463 (M.D. Pa. 2003), rev’d in part on other grounds , 401 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2005), 46 S. Cent. Timber Dev. v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82 (1984), 118......
-
Table of Cases
...Santa Cruz Med. Clinic v. Dominican Santa Cruz Hosp., 1995 WL 853037 (N.D. Cal. 1995), 230 Santana Prods. v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., 249 F. Supp. 2d 463 Pa. 2003), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 401 F.3d 123 Gd Cir. 2005), 127 SAS v. Puerto Rico Tel. Co., 48 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 1996), 118 Sau......
-
Table Of Cases
...Cir. 1993)................................................................. 145, 148, 149 Santana Prods. v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., 249 F. Supp. 2d 463 (M.D. Pa. 2003) ..........................................................42 Scandlines v. Port of Helsingborg, and Sundbusserne v. Port o......
-
The practical side of Noerr-Pennington
...Plastics v. Sknowbest! Inc., 247 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1103 (E.D. Wis. 2003). 89. See, e.g. , Santana Prods. v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., 249 F. Supp. 2d 463, 479-96 (M.D. Pa. 2003), aff’d in part 401 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2005); Sliding Door Co. v. KLS Doors, LLC, 2013 WL 2090298, at *6-7 (C.D. Cal......