905 F. Supp. 2d 675
D. Maryland2012Background
- Peterbilt, Arscott, PB of Baltimore, and Pete Store—Delaware move to dismiss EWCT’s counterclaims are before the court after discovery and a hearing (2012).
- EWCT and EEC, franchised Peterbilt dealers run by George Wilson III, allege Peterbilt breached the Dealer Agreement and acted in bad faith in approving transfers and handling competitive matters.
- The dispute centers on Wilson’s Landover dealership transfer attempts to Norris and competing sale dynamics with Arscott, Norris, and Hunter, with Peterbilt allegedly opposing alternatives.
- EWCT counterclaims assert bad-faith actions, coercion, termination without cause, and preferential treatment for exclusive dealers.
- Peterbilt moves to dismiss various counts as to Peterbilt, Arscott, PB of Baltimore, and Pete Store, arguing lack of viable claims or insufficient connection to contract or statute.
- The court denies in part and grants in part the motion to dismiss, allowing several counts to proceed past this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 15-206.1 good-faith obligation supports EWCT’s claims. | EWCT contends Peterbilt violated good faith in multiple conduct acts. | Peterbilt argues good faith adds no new contract duties beyond terms. | Count I survives for now; sufficient factual pleds support plausibility. |
| Whether § 15-207 coercion and related provisions are plausibly violated. | Wilson alleges coercive tactics to push transfers to Arscott or Peterbilt. | Peterbilt asserts no coercion beyond legitimate business decisions. | Count II viable; alleged coercion plausibly stated under 15-207(b) and (d). |
| Whether EWCT’s unfair competition claim against Arscott and PB Baltimore should stand. | Allegations show anti-competitive acts harming Wilson’s market position. | Unfair competition requires deceptive conduct or specific statutory fault. | Count VI survives; context allows broader unfair competition theory. |
| Whether tortious interference with contract and prospective economic relations are pled adequately. | Arscott’s involvement allegedly induced Peterbilt to disregard deals with Hunter/Norris. | Contract termination rights and competitive conduct may bar liability. | Counts VIII and IX survive with personal involvement and wrongful conduct alleged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baltimore Bedding Corp. v. Moses, 182 Md. 229 (Md. 1943) (unfair competition broadly protect business interests; no strict deception needed)
- Trimed, Inc. v. Sherwood Medical Co., 977 F.2d 885 (4th Cir.1992) (unfair competition can cover non-deceptive actions that harm competition)
- Colonial Dodge, Ltd. v. Chrysler Corp., 11 F. Supp. 2d 737 (D. Md. 1996) (coercion under ADDCA context; wrongful demand required for coercion)
- Fletcher v. Havre De Grace Fireworks Co., 229 Md. 196 (Md. 1962) (personal liability of officer for directing tortious acts)
- Levi v. Schwartz, 201 Md. 575 (Md. 1953) (president personally liable for corporate torts under certain supervision)
- Hale Trucks of Md., LLC v. Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc., 224 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (D. Md. 2002) (coercion concepts tied to ADDCA; good faith aspects)
- Macklin v. Robert Logan Assocs., 334 Md. 287 (Md. 1994) (tortious interference standards for non-terminable contracts)