Felder's Collision Parts, Inc. v. General Motors Co.
960 F. Supp. 2d 617
M.D. La.2013Background
- Felder's Collision Parts sues GM and All Star entities under RPA, Sherman Act, LUTPA, and Louisiana statutes; Doe Defendants 1-25 named.
- GM allegedly runs a pricing program, “Bump the Competition,” with rebates and a GM Collision Conquest Calculator to price OEM parts below aftermarket prices.
- Pricing allows OEM parts to be sold at a bottom-line price 33% below aftermarket, with rebates and cash incentives to dealers.
- Felder's, which sells aftermarket parts, alleges this scheme harmed aftermarket competition and caused bankruptcies among competitors.
- Court denies 12(b)(6) dismissal in part and grants leave to amend; the complaint is found deficient on market definition, market power, and certain standing/lutpa aspects.
- The court views multiple product markets as potentially relevant and requires more specificity in the amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RPA price discrimination sufficiency | Felder's alleges price discrimination between buyers via bottom-line OEM pricing and rebates. | Complaint fails to plead price discrimination between like buyers; no evidence of differential pricing. | Amendment granted; initial pleading failed to plead price discrimination under RPA. |
| Sherman Act §2 predatory pricing viability | Program aims to drive aftermarket competition out to recoup profits; predatory pricing alleged. | Market power/market definition unclear; recoupment unlikely; insufficient market power. | Amendment required on market definition and market power; court finds recoupment theory plausible but not pleaded with sufficient specificity. |
| Antitrust standing | Felder's seeks damages/injunctive relief under Clayton Act §4 and §16. | Not enough to show direct antitrust injury or proper plaintiff status. | Not resolved; court declines to determine standing at this stage. |
| Louisiana antitrust and LUTPA viability | Federal antitrust violations support LUTPA claims against Defendants. | Van Hoose v. Gravois indicates insufficient injury to competition; LUTPA requires separate pleading. | LUTPA claim deficient; leave to amend allowed to cure deficiencies; related state-law claims likewise need amendment. |
| All Star as single defendant and agency/alter-ego theory | All Star Defendants operate under single trade name; all are liable. | Courts have held parent/subsidiary agencies may shield, need specific allegations of involvement. | Court allows amendment but requires more specific involvement of All Star Advertising with GM; broader corporate umbrella pleading requires refinement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993) (predatory pricing requires dangerous probability of monopolization and below-cost pricing with recoupment risk)
- Infusion Res., Inc. v. Minimed, Inc., 351 F.3d 688 (5th Cir. 2003) (RPA elements include interstate commerce, like-grade goods, price discrimination, anti-competitive effect)
- Apani Sw., Inc. v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., 300 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2002) (market definition and cross-elasticity crucial for §2 analysis; multiple markets may exist)
- Domed Stadium Hotel, Inc. v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 732 F.2d 480 (5th Cir. 1984) (economic significance of sub-markets; multiple relevant product markets may exist)
- Taylor Pub. Co. v. Jostens, Inc., 216 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2000) (elements of attempted monopolization and market power considerations)
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (Supreme Court 1992) (definitions of market power and relevant market considerations)