Satnam Distribs. LLC v. Commonwealth-Altadis, Inc.

• Decision Date: 14 October 2015
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 14–6660
• Citation: 140 F.Supp.3d 405
• Parties: Satnam Distributors LLC Plaintiff, v. Commonwealth-Altadis, Inc., et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

140 F.Supp.3d 405

Satnam Distributors LLC Plaintiff,

v.Commonwealth-Altadis, Inc., et al. Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14–6660

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed October 14, 2015

Brent W. Landau, Hausfeld LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

Robert J. Brookhiser, Jr., Elizabeth B. McCallum, Joseph A. Ostoyich, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, DC, Carl W. Hittinger, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Robert E. Welsh, Jr., Welsh & Recker, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Andrew M. Lanker, Joseph C. Perry, Baker Botts LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

L. Felipe Restrepo, U.S. District Judge

Plaintiff Satnam Distributors LLC ("Plaintiff") brings this action, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief, against the following defendants: a convenience store distributor, Harold Levinson Associates, Inc. ("HLA"); a manufacturer of cigarette-related products, Commonwealth Brands, Inc. ("Commonwealth"); a manufacturer of mass market cigars, Altadis U.S.A., Inc. ("Altadis"); and the sales and distribution company for Commonwealth and Altadis, Commonwealth-Altadis, Inc. ("CA, Inc."). Plaintiff alleges HLA entered into an agreement with Defendants CA, Inc., Commonwealth, and Altadis (collectively, "CA") to receive favorable prices and promotional discounts on mass market cigars, so that HLA could monopolize the market for distribution of those cigars. Plaintiff asserts that these actions violate Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act (hereinafter, "Robinson-Patman Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 13, and Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 -2. Before the Court are motions to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), filed by HLA & CA (collectively, "Defendants"). The Court held oral argument on both motions, which are now ripe for disposition. For the following reasons, Defendants' motions are granted in part and denied in part.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff and HLA are distribution companies in the business of supplying convenience stores with a diverse range of merchandise, including mass market cigars. Compl. ¶¶ 8, 12, 23. Mass market cigars are machine-produced in mass quantities and made with short filler, unlike handmade premium cigars. Id. ¶¶ 17-19. They are less expensive than premium cigars, and billions of units are sold annually in the United States; almost 70% of mass market cigars produced are sold at convenience stores or similar retail outlets. Id. ¶ 17. As the largest producer of mass market cigars in the world, Altadis is well known in the United States for its popular brands, including Dutch Masters, Backwoods, Phillies, Hav-A-Tampa, and White Cat. Id. ¶¶ 11a¹ , 22, 24-25.

In addition to making direct sales to convenience stores, Plaintiff and HLA sell to other distributors and cash-and-carry wholesalers, which, in turn, service convenience stores. Id. ¶ 23. Convenience store owners rely on distributors to consistently stock in-demand products at reasonable prices. See id. ¶ 29. Convenience stores demand that distributors supply them with the full line of all major mass market cigar brands available in the marketplace, and they will not substitute one manufacturer's brands for another. See id. ¶¶ 23-24. Consequently, distributors with convenience store customers, like Plaintiff and HLA, must stock and sell all major brands of mass market cigars. See id.

In early 2011, Plaintiff opened a unit of its distribution business in Southeastern Pennsylvania to supply other distributors and convenience stores with various merchandise, including mass market cigars. Id. ¶ 37. At the time Plaintiff began conducting business in Pennsylvania, HLA controlled 80% of the market for distribution of CA's mass market cigars. Id. ¶ 39. In order to compete with HLA, Plaintiff began purchasing mass market cigars from Altadis. Id. ¶ 40. Between January and August 2011, Plaintiff purchased nearly 6,000 cases of cigars from Altadis for over $2 million. Id. ¶ 41. Plaintiff's market share of the CA mass market cigar distribution business in Pennsylvania grew initially to 30%, while HLA's market share decreased to 50%. Id. ¶¶ 42-43.

In response to Plaintiff's success, Plaintiff alleges, HLA entered into an agreement with Altadis to receive pricing and promotional discount advantages over Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 44. For instance, Altadis gave HLA more free cases with each purchase than it gave Plaintiff, or provided HLA with more promotional funds than it provided Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 46-48. Because Plaintiff was not offered the same promotions that Altadis provided to HLA, Plaintiff asserts it paid Altadis, in effect, 10% to 20% more than HLA paid for identical products. Id. ¶¶ 49-50.

Despite the disadvantages it was experiencing, Plaintiff attempted to continue to develop its relationship with Altadis. Id. ¶ 51. In August 2011, Plaintiff corresponded with an Altadis representative about a purchase order for $10 million and requested a "standard '10+1' promotional deal, with additional promotional discounts." Id. ¶¶ 53-54. Plaintiff made repeated attempts to discuss the large volume sale with Altadis, but the Altadis representative responded that the company was "not ready to make a decision." Id. ¶¶ 54-55. In September 2011, Plaintiff submitted three purchase orders to Altadis for over $1.2 million total, based on a discount and promotion for a "20+1" deal, which was less beneficial than the original "10+1" deal Plaintiff previously requested. Id. ¶ 57. In proposing this second deal, Plaintiff complained to the Altadis representative that it was buying at a price higher than its competition's selling price. Id. ¶¶ 57-59. Plaintiff's offer was denied by Altadis, and Altadis raised its list prices. Id. ¶ 58. As a result, Plaintiff purchased less than $30,000 worth of cigars from Altadis in September 2011. Id. ¶ 60.

In November 2011, CA, Inc. was established as a sales and distribution company to facilitate the sales and marketing of Altadis and Commonwealth products.² Id. ¶ 61. Once CA, Inc. was established, Plaintiff began to receive promotional offers, such as "8+1" and "10+1" deals or "bill back credits," which were dollar credits for every box sold of a certain CA mass market cigar brand. See id. ¶ 62. However, Plaintiff still continued to pay approximately 10% more than HLA for Altadis products, id. ¶¶ 63-65, allowing HLA to sell CA's mass market cigars for lower prices than Plaintiff purchased products from CA, Inc. Id. ¶¶ 69-72.

Despite Plaintiff's awareness of these price discrepancies, it purchased over 5,700 cases of CA's mass market cigars for over $2.3 million between November 2011 and January 2012. Id. ¶ 66. From February 2012 to May 2012, Plaintiff purchased over 15,500 cases for over $6.6 million. Id. ¶ 67. In May 2012, Plaintiff was informed by a CA sales representative that Plaintiff was "disrupting the marketplace" by competing with HLA and that Plaintiff would not be offered any promotions other than the "8+ 1" deal through June. Id. ¶¶ 74-75. Although Plaintiff was concerned that the lack of notice for this change would detrimentally impact Plaintiff's business and goodwill, Plaintiff submitted an order for over $500,000, without any promotional funds, that month. Id. ¶¶ 75, 77. Once the "8+1" promotional deal ended in June, Plaintiff was unable to financially maintain the volume it had been purchasing from CA, Inc. and Plaintiff reduced its purchase volume significantly. Id. ¶¶ 78-79.

In July 2012, Plaintiff reached out to his sales contacts at CA, Inc. about two orders, totaling over $1 million, and requested similar discounts that other distributors in the market were receiving. Id. ¶ 81. However, CA, Inc. did not offer Plaintiff similar pricing, so Plaintiff did not submit an order. Id. ¶ 82. As a consequence of Plaintiff's inability to compete in the distribution market for CA's mass market cigars, HLA regained its dominance and achieved at least 80% market share by early 2013. Id. ¶ 83.

On or about January 2, 2013, a new CA, Inc. sales representative assigned to Plaintiff's account sent out a general notice to Plaintiff and other distributors about CA, Inc.' s promotion for 7% credit on purchases of CA's mass market cigars. Id. ¶ 84. Plaintiff subsequently submitted three purchase orders for a total of 1,200 cases at over $620,000 total; these three orders were not processed. Id. ¶¶ 84-85. Both the representative and Plaintiff asked CA, Inc.' s management about the status of Plaintiff's orders, but neither received a response. Id. ¶¶ 85-86, 88. Plaintiff alleges that CA, Inc.'s senior managers were upset that Plaintiff was offered a promotion, which was in violation of CA, Inc's alleged agreement with HLA to discriminate against Plaintiff in sales of Altadis products. Id. ¶ 87. In September 2013, CA, Inc. announced a price increase and Plaintiff submitted an order for CA's mass market cigars. Id. ¶ 89. Although CA, Inc.' s customer service department initially sent Plaintiff an invoice for this order, along with an anticipated shipping date, CA, Inc. later canceled the order and closed Plaintiff's account. Id. ¶¶ 89-90. Plaintiff never received a written or verbal explanation for CA, Inc.'s decision. Id. ¶ 90.

Plaintiff subsequently filed this action alleging the following claims against all Defendants: conspiracy to monopolize, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 (Count V); and unlawful agreement in restraint of trade, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (Count VI). See generally Compl. Against HLA, Plaintiff also alleged: a violation of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 13(a), 13(d), and 13(f) for knowingly inducing or receiving a discrimination in price (Count II); and claims of monopolization (Count III) and attempted monopolization (Count IV) under the Sherman Act. Id. Against CA, Plaintiff asserted an additional claim of price discrimination, in violation of §§ 13(a) and 1...