753 F. Supp. 2d 912
E.D. Mo.2010Background
- Automation sues Emerson and FM defendants in an antitrust and false advertising dispute arising from refusal to deal and FM-approved safety branding claims.
- Automation remanufactures Emerson equipment; Emerson’s Encore remanufactured line is FM-approved due to access to Emerson information and updates.
- FM Approvals created OEM requirement mandating an agreement with the original manufacturer for certification; Automation could not obtain FM approval.
- Emerson advertises Encore as safer than non-FM remanufacturers and mails letters to Automation’s customers asserting this.
- Automation sought FM approval for its products but was denied and FM Approvals refused to relax the OEM requirement; Automation alleges a conspiracy to restrain sales and monopolize the aftermarket.
- Court grants dismissal of several Sherman Act §1 and §2 conspiracy claims, denies dismissal of Lanham Act and state-law claims, and grants Fisher Intervenor status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Automations §1 claims plausibly allege an agreement | Automation asserts parallel conduct suggests prior agreement | Defendants contend no plausible pre-existing agreement is pleaded | Section 1 claims dismissed for lack of plausible agreement |
| Whether Emerson has monopoly power in the aftermarket | Emerson dominates remanufactured equipment aftermarket | No plausible allegations of monopoly power given multiple players and lack of dominance | Counts III–VI dismissed; no sufficient monopoly power allegation |
| Whether Lanham Act claims are plausibly false or misleading | Emerson’s claims of superior safety are false/misleading based on detailed remanufacturing description | Statements are not literally false or misleading | Lanham Act claims survive to proceed to factual determination |
| Whether Missouri tortious interference and defamation claims survive | Emerson’s letters interfere with Automation’s business; alleged false safety claims injure reputation | Justification and truth issues contested | Tortious interference and defamation claims survive Louisiana (Missouri) analysis; accrual and notice issues addressed |
| Whether pre-2007 settlement precludes claims | Settlement released pre-12/13/2007 claims | Pre-2007 activities barred | Claims based on post-2007 activities not barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must plead plausible claims, not mere speculation)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard applied to federal pleadings)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989) ( Rule 12(b)(6) standard and pleads beyond conclusory statements)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (antitrust parallel conduct must suggest prior agreement)
- Starr v. Sony BMG Music Entm't, 592 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 2010) (plausible agreement where parallel conduct implies prior pact)
- DM Research v. College of Am. Pathologists, 170 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 1999) (no basis to infer agreement without adequate context)
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., 504 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1992) (aftermarket monopolization considerations in antitrust)