Contractor Tool Supply, Inc. v. JPW Industries, Inc.
5:24-cv-00347
| M.D. Fla. | May 5, 2025Background
- Contractor Tool Supply, Inc. (CTS), a woodworking tools distributor, sued JPW Industries, Inc. (JPW), a manufacturer with a significant share of the U.S. woodworking-tool market.
- CTS alleged that after becoming a major sales source for JPW, it faced exclusion and discriminatory practices when JPW entered into exclusive arrangements with Amazon, another distributor.
- JPW's Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) policy became a focal point, allegedly enforced against CTS in a manner that hindered CTS’s ability to compete on Amazon.
- JPW sent CTS new business terms which CTS rejected, after which JPW ceased fulfilling CTS's orders.
- CTS brought claims for breach of contract, federal and state antitrust violations, and discriminatory pricing under the Robinson-Patman Act, among others, arising out of these events.
- The case came before the court on JPW's motion to dismiss CTS’s amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of Contract | JPW breached an enforceable contract by ceasing order fulfillment. | Contract lacked quantity and consideration; unenforceable. | Sufficient facts alleged; motion to dismiss denied. |
| Sherman Act (Vertical Restraint; Resale Price Maintenance) | JPW’s MAP policy with Amazon is an unlawful restraint on trade. | Only advertising was restricted; no restraint of resale price. | No harm to competition plausibly alleged; claim dismissed. |
| Robinson-Patman Act - Price Discrimination | JPW unlawfully favored Amazon with better prices, harming CTS. | No contemporaneous sales; no injury to competition. | No plausible injury or substantial period shown; dismissed. |
| Robinson-Patman Act - Promotional Allowances | JPW offered advertising aid only to Amazon, not CTS. | Plaintiff gave only conclusory allegations. | Sufficiently pled; motion to dismiss denied. |
| Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices (FDUTPA) | JPW’s conduct violates § 13(d) of the RPA, a predicate for FDUTPA. | No violation as to underlying RPA claim. | Claim for FDUTPA survives based on plausible RPA violation. |
| Florida Antitrust Act | State law mirrors Sherman Act violation. | Follows outcome of Sherman Act claim. | Dismissed in parity with Sherman Act claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (sets pleading standards for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 2007) (establishes "plausibility" standard for pleading)
- Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (Supreme Court 2007) (rule of reason applies to vertical price restraints)
- F.T.C. v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U.S. 37 (Supreme Court 1948) (standard for competitive injury under Robinson-Patman Act)
- Falls City Indus., Inc. v. Vanco Beverage, Inc., 460 U.S. 428 (Supreme Court 1983) (price discrimination over substantial period)
- Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc., 546 U.S. 164 (Supreme Court 2006) (contemporaneity and injury in price discrimination claims)
- United States v. Brown Univ., 5 F.3d 658 (3d Cir. 1993) (actual anticompetitive effects under rule of reason)
- Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 (Supreme Court 1962) (product and geographic market definition)
- Beck v. Lazard Freres & Co., LLC, 175 F.3d 913 (11th Cir. 1999) (elements of breach of contract under Florida law)