Yeager's Fuel v. Penn. Power & Light
| Decision Date | 31 January 1997 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 91-5176.,Civil Action No. 92-2359. |
| Citation | 953 F.Supp. 617 |
| Parties | YEAGER'S FUEL, INC., et al. v. PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY. LOSCH BOILER SALES & SERVICE COMPANY v. PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Harold E. Kohn, Kohn, Savett, Klein & Graf, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for Oil Heat Council of Lancaster Co., Inc.
Wayne M. Thomas, Harold E. Kohn, Kohn, Savett, Klein & Graf, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for Penn. Petroleum Ass'n.
Kirchoff, Inc., Lancaster, PA, pro se.
Glenn C. Equi, Elizabeth McKenna, Harvey, Pennington, Herting & Renneisen, Ltd., Wayne M. Thomas, Kohn, Savett, Klein & Graf, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for Losch Boiler Sales & Service Co.
Catherine Panchou Cox, Harvey, Pennington, Herting & Renneisen, Ltd., Philadelphia, PA, for Yeager's Fuel, Inc., in No. 92-CV-2359.
The Court commences another chapter in this protracted and multifarious litigation. Defendant, Pennsylvania Power and Light ("PP & L"), operates an electric utility in central and northeastern Pennsylvania and constitutes the sole source of electric power in those regions. Plaintiffs, fuel oil dealers,1 compete directly with PP & L in the market for residential heating and related equipment in PP & L's service area. Plaintiffs contend that PP & L unlawfully restrained trade through business practices and marketing schemes in violation of both federal antitrust laws and state common-law. PP & L currently submits, for the Court's consideration, its Motion for Summary Judgment.
It should be noted at the outset that both parties have presented the Court well drafted, comprehensive, concise, and organized briefs, with relevant submissions attached thereto. During oral argument on the Motion, both sides crafted compelling arguments, and the Court, in evaluating this Motion, faces a difficult task. After much deliberation, and for the following reasons, the Court will grant in part and deny in part PP & L's Motion.
In August, 1991, various fuel oil dealers filed a complaint in this Court alleging violations of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act ("Sherman Act"), 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1, 2 (West Supp.1996); section 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Act ("Robinson-Patman Act"), 15 U.S.C.A. § 13(c) (West 1973); section 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act ("Clayton Act"), 15 U.S.C.A. § 14 (West 1973); and section 1962(c) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1961-1968 (West 1984 & Supp.1995). In April, 1992, Losch Boiler Sales & Service Company, a fuel oil and related equipment dealer, filed a separate complaint against PP & L in this Court asserting essentially the same claims, with the addition of a claim under § 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 13a (West 1973) and state-law claims of unfair competition and civil conspiracy. Both Complaints rested on the same factual allegations, and the Court consolidated the cases. (See Doc. Nos. 89, 144 (consolidating cases)). Generally, Plaintiffs alleged that PP & L engaged in illegal promotional strategies, such as cash incentives, reduced electric rates, rebates, and subsidized advertising, in an effort to encourage the installation of electric heat pumps in homes located in its service area.
In early 1992, PP & L moved for summary judgment. By Opinion and Order dated September 8, 1992, this Court granted in part and denied in part PP & L's Motion. See Yeager's Fuel, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 804 F.Supp. 700 (E.D.Pa.1992), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 22 F.3d 1260 (3d Cir.1994) ("Yeagers I"). Accepting PP & L's contention that the challenged conduct constituted part and parcel of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's energy conservation policies, and having determined that the allegedly anticompetitive behavior was conducted "pursuant to a clearly articulated state policy and under active state supervision," the Court determined that Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 63 S.Ct. 307, 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943), immunized PP & L from federal antitrust and racketeering liability. Yeagers I, 804 F.Supp. at 702. Similarly, the Court dismissed the RICO claim in the absence of a properly pleaded predicate act.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part in Yeager's Fuel, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 22 F.3d 1260, 1263 (3d Cir.1994) ("Yeagers II"). Reversing this Court's decision regarding the federal antitrust claims, Yeagers II narrowed the focus of those claims...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M.D. v. Claudio
...18, 1995)); ID Sec. Sys. Canada, Inc. v. Checkpoint Sys., Inc., 249 F.Supp.2d 622, 688 (E.D.Pa.2003); Yeager's Fuel, Inc. v. Pa. Power & Light Co., 953 F.Supp. 617, 668 (E.D.Pa.1997). Under Section 1 of the Restatement, “[a]s a general matter, if the means of competition are otherwise torti......
-
Brunson Communications, Inc. v. Arbiron, Inc.
...operating at different levels of the market structure, such as manufacturers and distributors." Yeager's Fuel v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 953 F.Supp. 617, 654 (E.D.Pa.1997) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 737, 1563 (6th ed.1991)). As already discussed, there are no sufficient allegat......
-
In re Escalera Res. Co.
...the country also supports the characterization of electrical energy as a commodity under the Robinson–Patman Act. Yeager's Fuel, Inc. v. Pa. Power & Light Co. , 953 F.Supp. 617, 663 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (concluding that electricity is a commodity under the Clayton Act and Robinson–Patman Act); R......
-
Syncsort Inc. v. Sequential Software, Inc.
...181, 96 L.Ed. 162); see also Griffith, 334 U.S. at 108, 68 S.Ct. 941; Advo, 51 F.3d at 1202-03; Yeager's Fuel, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 953 F.Supp. 617, 652 (E.D.Pa. 1997). Preliminarily, "[i]f there is no monopoly power [in the primary market], there can be no illegal levera......
-
Table of cases
...(5th Cir. 1971), 202 Y Yamaha Motor Co. v. FTC, 657 F.2d 971 (8th Cir. 1981), 146, 155 Yeager’s Fuel, Inc. v. Pa. Power & Light Co., 953 F. Supp. 617 (E.D. Pa. 1997), 65 , 86, 109, 116 , 117, 122 Z ZF Meritor LLC v. Eaton Corp., 696 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 2012), 84 , 86 ...
-
Single Firm Conduct
...F.3d 254, 271 (3d Cir. 2012) (finding that exclusive dealing arrangements “are of special concern when imposed by a monopolist.”). 75. 953 F. Supp. 617 (E.D. Pa. 1997). Single Firm Conduct 87 home builders and with home owners that provided discounts on installation of electric heating syst......
-
Section 2 of The Sherman Act
...proof of some unfair or predatory conduct in furtherance of that intent. See, e.g. , Yeager’s Fuel v. Pa. Power & Light Co., 953 F. Supp. 617, 642 (E.D. Pa. 1997); William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Cont’l Baking Co., 688 F.2d 1014, 1028 (9th Cir. 1981); Buffalo Courier-Express v. Buff......
-
Robinson-Patman Act
...to allege specific facts that the payment or discount was in lieu of brokerage); Yeager’s Fuel v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 953 F. Supp. 617, 664-66 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (program in which electric company sold electricity to homeowners and also made incentive payments to home builders to i......