New Albany Tractor, Inc. v. Louisville Tractor, Inc.
650 F.3d 1046
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- New Albany Tractor sues for Robinson-Patman Act violations seeking relief for discriminatory pricing in an exclusive Scag distribution structure.
- Plaintiff alleges Scag (manufacturer) sets or controls pricing, using Louisville Tractor (exclusive distributor/retailer) as a strawman to sell to retailers, including New Albany.
- District court initially denied dismissal, then granted dismissal for failure to state a claim, concluding allegations did not show Scag-controlled pricing.
- Plaintiff relied on the indirect purchaser doctrine to assert two contemporaneous sales to different purchasers, one through Scag to Louisville Tractor and then to retailers.
- Twombly and Iqbal heightened pleading standards prohibit discovery to obtain pricing information, making it difficult for plaintiff to plead necessary facts absent from the complaint.
- Court affirms district court’s dismissal with prejudice under Twombly/Iqbal and addresses leave-to-amend issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Robinson-Patman claim is pleaded with plausibility under Twombly/Iqbal | New Albany relies on indirect purchaser doctrine to plead price control by Scag | Plaintiff failed to allege two contemporaneous sales at different prices and Scag-controlled pricing | Dismissal affirmed; claims not plausibly alleged under Twombly/Iqbal |
| Whether leave to amend should have been granted or dismissal without prejudice was appropriate | District court should have allowed amendment or dismissed without prejudice | Failure to plead adequate facts; amendment would be futile under Iqbal/Twombly | Dismissal with prejudice affirmed; amendment not warranted under Iqbal |
| Whether the indirect purchaser doctrine applies given allegations of exclusive distributor | Distributors’ exclusivity does not foreclose possibility of control by manufacturer | Exclusive distributorship alone shows no manufacture-set pricing; control not alleged | Doctrine not satisfied; no adequate allegation of Scag control over Louisville Tractor’s pricing |
| Whether the district court properly applied the need for price-discrimination allegations | Pricing details exist in defendants’ records; discovery should be allowed | Discovery not permitted post-Iqbal; allegations insufficient | Iqbal and Twombly bar discovery; complaint insufficient to state a claim |
| Whether the pricing information could be obtained by discovery to state a claim | Pricing data exists within defendants’ systems | Discovery not allowed; facts unavailable but not pleadable under Twombly/Iqbal | No discovery permitted; dismissal with prejudice affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleadings must show plausible entitlement to relief under Rule 8(a)(2))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (no discovery for pleading deficiencies; plausibility standard applies)
- Barnosky Oils, Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 665 F.2d 74 (6th Cir. 1981) (indirect purchaser doctrine requires showing the manufacturer set/controlled prices)
- Lewis v. Philip Morris, Inc., 355 F.3d 515 (6th Cir. 2004) (indirect purchaser doctrine; purchaser through middleman can be liable if supplier controls resale prices)
- Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 502 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 2007) (pleading standards under Twombly/Iqbal; specificity required to state a claim)