ANDY MOHR TRUCK CENTER, INC v. VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA
1:12-cv-00448
| S.D. Ind. | Jul 20, 2015Background
- AMTC sues Volvo Trucks North America in the Southern District of Indiana over alleged discriminatory concessions under the Indiana Deceptive Franchise Practices Act (IDFPA).
- IDFPA prohibits discrimination among franchisees and contains no geographic limitation on applicability.
- Court previously resolved most motions in limine; three remain, including concessions to out-of-state dealers and non-franchisees, and loss-causation issues.
- Volvo argued the IDFPA should be read as applying only domestically and raised a dormant commerce clause defense late; the court found waiver.
- The court limited some evidence about concessions and loss causation, permitting certain testimony while excluding hearsay for other aspects and allowing jury determinations on comparability of dealers.
- For National Account Transactions, the court noted that only franchisees or dealers who purchased from a franchisee are proper comparators under the IDFPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence of concessions to out-of-state dealers is admissible | AMTC must show disparate treatment relative to similarly situated dealers, including out-of-state ones. | Volvo seeks to exclude out-of-state concessions as irrelevant under IDFPA. | Denied; AMTC may compare to out-of-state franchisees for discrimination analysis. |
| Whether concessions to non-franchisees are admissible | Concessions to non-franchisees may inform Volvo's ability to concede and other defenses. | Non-franchisee concessions are irrelevant to discrimination among franchisees. | Partially granted; non-franchisee concessions generally excluded, but may be probative for reasons Volvo gave concessions (e.g., ability to concede). |
| Loss causation and proof for lost profits | AMTC should be allowed to prove injury and causation; Vaughn's testimony may show causation. | Loss must be proven as a direct result of Volvo's concession decisions; hearsay and speculation concerns. | Vaughn's testimony allowed with limits; causation standards align (responsible cause vs but-for). |
| Admissibility and scope of National Account Transactions | National Account transactions may show discriminatorily favorable terms to comparators who are franchisees or purchased via a franchisee. | Only franchisees or those purchasing from a franchisee are proper comparators; National Accounts require scrutiny. | National Account transactions may be considered only to the extent they involve franchisees or purchases from franchisees; others excluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Canada Dry Corp. v. Nehi Beverage Co. of Indianapolis, 723 F.2d 512 (7th Cir. 1983) (discrimination among franchisees requires comparing similarly situated franchisees)
- King v. Kramer, 763 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2014) (waiver concepts applied to late-raising arguments; equitable prejudice)
- BCS Servs., Inc. v. BG Investments, Inc., 728 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2013) (damages may be estimated when actual calculation is impractical)