Because the evidence in this case is at least “as equally consistent with permissible competition as it is with an illegal conspiracy,” Helicopter Support Sys., Inc.
ACS appeals the entry of summary judgment against it and in favor of the competitor distributor, Defendant-Appellee HD Supply Construction Supply, Ltd., known as “White Cap,” on ACS’s Sherman Antitrust Act and Georgia state law claims, all based on the theory that White Cap illegally conspired with the manufacturer, Meadow Burke. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge: USCA11 Case: 20-10813 Date Filed: Page: 2 of 35 This appeal requires us to determine whether Plaintiff-Appellant American Contractors Supply, LLC (“ACS”), a distributor of tilt-wall equipment, presented evidence of facts tending to exclude the inference that a competing distributor and a manufacturer acted independently when the manufacturer terminated further business with ACS in the Florida market. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _ (March 4, 2021) Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 1:16-cv-03595-MLB AMERICAN CONTRACTORS SUPPLY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus HD SUPPLY CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY, LTD., Defendant-Appellee. USCA11 Case: 20-10813 Date Filed: Page: 1 of 35 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. Finally, the court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment on the tortious interference claim. The court also held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on ACS's monopolization and attempted monopolization claims pursuant to section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Therefore, the court cannot conclude that White Cap acted in a manner rising to the level of anticompetitive conduct necessary for a claim under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Furthermore, the evidence is at least equally consistent with White Cap having made an independent decision to continue distributing the Meadow Burke product as it is with it having engaged in concerted action. The court held that the evidence is at least equally consistent with Meadow Burke having made an independent decision to terminate ACS as it is with an inference of concerted action.
ACS argues that summary judgment was erroneously granted because the evidence demonstrates that White Cap agreed with Meadow Burke to have Meadow Burke stop supplying ACS projects in Florida. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against ACS and in favor of its competing distributor, White Cap, on ACS's Sherman Antitrust Act and Georgia state law claims.
0 kommentar(er)
