King Coal Chevrolet Co. v. General Motors Co.
2:12-cv-05992
S.D.W. VaMay 23, 2013Background
- King Coal Chevrolet Co. sues GM LLC over alleged improper market entry of a rival Chevrolet dealer in Beckley, WV.
- GM restructured its dealer network post-Chapter 11, closing Lewis Automotive and allowing Crossroads to open nearby.
- Crossroads was established within two years of Lewis Automotive's closure and is within the relevant 20-air-mile market area from King Coal.
- GM contends Crossroads is a reopening/relocation exempt from notice under WV Dealer's Act §17A-6A-12(4) because Lewis Automotive's closure falls within the safe harbor.
- King Coal seeks (a) an injunction barring GM from enabling another Chevrolet dealer in the area and (b) the statutory notice under the Dealer's Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GM must provide 17A-6A-12(2) notice or qualifies for safe harbor. | King Coal argues Crossroads is a new dealer, triggering §17A-6A-12(2). | GM contends Crossroads is a reopening within §17A-6A-12(4) safe harbor. | Certification pending; court denied preliminary injunctive relief without prejudice. |
| Whether King Coal is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. | King Coal seeks immediate relief to prevent further market entry. | Laches/standing issues deferred pending certified question. | Denied without prejudice due to certification. |
| Whether to certify a question to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. | N/A. | N/A. | Certified question about the safe harbor vs. notice requirement; injunction and dismissal stayed pending answer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (courts must accept factual allegations as true on motion to dismiss)
- Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. N. Am. Specialty Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 245 (4th Cir. 2004) (summary-judgment standard and pleadings standard cited in context)
- Anderson v. Sara Lee Corp., 508 F.3d 181 (4th Cir. 2007) (claim plausibility and notice standard under Rule 8/a and Iqbal)
- Monroe v. City of Charlottesville, 579 F.3d 380 (4th Cir. 2009) (application of Twombly/Iqbal standard)
- Camreta v. Greene, 131 S. Ct. 2020 (S. Ct. 2011) (avoid deciding constitutional questions when not necessary)
- South Carolina Dept. of Health and Environmental Control v. Commerce and Industry Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 245 (4th Cir. 2004) (reaffirmation of pleading standards)