Superior Offshore International, Inc. v. Bristow Group, Inc.
490 F. App'x 492
3rd Cir.2012Background
- SOI sues Bristow Group Inc., PHI, Era Helicopters LLC, Seacor Holdings Inc., Era Group Inc., and Era Aviation Inc. for alleged price fixing of offshore helicopter services used by the Gulf of Mexico oil/gas industry.
- Defendants hold ~90% market share; buyers typically sign long-term charters with fixed prices and hourly charges.
- SOI’s original 2009 complaint claimed a 50% price increase from 2001–2005, including two 15%–to–30% increases in early 2001.
- District Court dismissed the original complaint as lacking evidence of a contract, combination, or conspiracy.
- SOI amended the complaint in 2010, alleging a 2001 conversation overheard by a confidential source (Mike Tuttle) involving Graves (Bristow) and PHI personnel, suggesting a price increase coordinated among at least Bristow, PHI, and Era.
- The District Court limited discovery to the amended allegations and granted summary judgment, finding no evidence of a conspiracy and that Tuttle’s vague testimony was insufficient to show a concerted action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is direct evidence of a conspiracy. | SOI relies on Tuttle’s account as direct evidence. | Tuttle’s memories are vague and not explicit; no words showing agreement. | No direct evidence of conspiracy. |
| Whether SOI produced enough circumstantial evidence (parallelism + plus factors) to create a triable issue. | SOI had parallel price increases plus plus factors indicating agreement. | Parallelism with weak plus factors does not prove agreement; independent action possible. | Insufficient evidence of concerted action to survive summary judgment. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying additional discovery under Rule 56(d). | SOI needed more discovery to respond to summary judgment. | SOI failed to show that discovery would preclude judgment; requests were speculative. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2010) (two elements of concerted action and effect on trade in § 1 cases; parallelism plus factors allowed)
- Baby Food Antitrust Litig., 166 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 1999) (distinguishes direct evidence from circumstantial inferences)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court 1986) (antitrust inference limits; need for independent action evidence)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 2007) (parallel conduct alone insufficient without context suggesting agreement)
- Flat Glass Antitrust Litig., 385 F.3d 350 (3d Cir. 2004) (plus factors; conscious parallelism with likelihood of independent action)
- Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2004) (plus factors analysis in parallel pricing cases)
- Brokerage v. In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2010) (sets framework for concerted action and required evidence)