M.L. ROBERT, II, L.L.C. v. EASTERN MUSHROOM MARKETING COOPERATIVE, INC.
2:06-cv-00861
E.D. Pa.Oct 14, 2014Background
- The court addresses a motion for reconsideration of its 2009 ruling denying Capper-Volstead immunity to former EMMC members and distributors.
- Movants argue intervening Supreme Court and Third Circuit decisions (American Needle and Deutscher Tennis Bund) changed law on single-entity defenses.
- Court previously held Kaolin/South Mill distribution centers are separate entities; LRP-M/Manfredini entitites’ relationship is indeterminate; M. Cutone is a non-grower member whose inclusion defeats immunity.
- Decision discusses good-faith reliance on counsel as a potential defense to Capper-Volstead immunity and rejects it as a basis to shield conduct from antitrust liability.
- Court grants interlocutory certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to allow immediate appeal on the single-entity issues and M. Cutone’s status.
- The opinion notes ongoing Phase II discovery and related motions, with several unresolved issues in the broader MDL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervening-law warranting reconsideration | Mushroom argues American Needle and Deutscher Tennis Bund require reconsideration. | Defendants contend intervening decisions justify reconsideration despite delay. | Intervening-law basis deemed: appropriate for reconsideration |
| Good faith reliance on counsel as defense | plaintiffs argue good-faith reliance could shield producers | defendants argue good-faith reliance should shield them | Good-faith reliance on counsel is not a defense to Sherman Act §1 liability |
| Kaolin/South Mill as a single entity | Kaolin/South Mill distribution centers could be a single entity with growers | Under American Needle/Deutscher Tennis Bund they may be a single entity | Kaolin/South Mill cannot constitute a single entity; immune shield not available for them |
| LRP-M/Manfredini Enterprises relationship | Record unclear whether they are a single entity with competitive realities | Argues for potential single-entity status or at least nondispositive on immunity | Relationship indeterminate; does not alter immunity outcome for Kaolin/South Mill; but not resolved to grant immunity |
| M. Cutone's status and impact on immunity | M. Cutone’ s non-grower status destroys Capper-Volstead immunity | Argues good-faith errors could preserve immunity | M. Cutone is non-grower; inclusion defeats immunity; not saved by single-entity defense |
Key Cases Cited
- American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, 560 U.S. 183 (2010) (unitary decisionmaking and functional analysis for §1 conspiracy)
- Deutscher Tennis Bund v. ATP Tour, Inc., 610 F.3d 820 (3d Cir. 2010) (single-entity/competition analysis in ATP context)
- Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984) (unitary entity concept in §1 conspiracy analysis)
- Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Prods. Co., 370 U.S. 69 (1962) (formal structure not determinative; economic reality controls)
- Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass’n v. United States, 362 U.S. 458 (1960) (Capper-Volstead Act scope and immunity scope described)
- Case-Swayne Co. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 389 U.S. 384 (1967) (dissent cited re good-faith immunity considerations)
- Consolidated Express, Inc. v. N.Y. Shipping Ass’n, 602 F.2d 494 (3d Cir. 1979) (retroactive changes in law and damages limitation context)
- In re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., 621 F. Supp. 2d 274 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (prior Capper-Volstead immunity rulings on EMMC)