National Parcel Services, Incorporated v. J.B. Hunt Logistics, Incorporated J.B. Hunt Transport, Incorporated
150 F.3d 970
8th Cir.
1998
Check Treatment

*1 HEANEY, Circuit Before LOKEN JONES,* Judge. District Judges, and LOKEN, Judge. skip- a “zone

National Parcel Service pack- company receives per,” shipping catalog mer- from order and retail ages mail bulk United delivers them in chants and (USPS) mail dis- bulk Service Postal States This enables tribution centers. Dakota, designation. JONES, sitting by *The JOHN B. HONORABLE of South District for the District

971 (8th Cir.1995). prices charge lower than United Parcel Ser- 343 The district prop- (UPS), charges premium erly a vice UPS dismissed this claim. deliveries,

for residential and offer faster than service USPS. NPS’s state law tort claim is for interference with its relations with one.cus Transport large J.B. Hunt is a interstate tomer who succumbed to J.B. Hunt’s better mid-1994, trucking company. In a prices. (Second) Following the Restatement subsidiary skipping entered the zone busi- torts, competitive of Torts for Iowa law re ness, targeting the of customers NPS and a quires proof “improper” interference. See CTC, skipper, prices. third zone with low Co., 191, Nesler v. Fisher & 452 N.W.2d early, strategy was to make (Iowa 1990). 196-99 In determining what is im price you “whatever give concessions need to proper, the recognizes vig Restatement that whatever, get quickly.” us in the competition desirable, orous not tortious. meeting representatives At a between of J.B. (2d) § See Restatement Torts 768. Reflect NPS, principal Hunt and an NPS asked the ing principle, that Supreme the Court of representative why J.B. Hunt sug- he had Iowa has held that intentional interference was, “Well, gested meeting. the The answer prospective advantage with requires proof of I’m buy you. Why buy would “predominant purpose” a you? you out.” J.B. Hunt’s plaintiff. Berger Store, the See v. Cas’ Feed grew quickly competitors’ revenues at Inc., (Iowa 597, 1996); 543 N.W.2d Wil expense. surprisingly, Not NPS lost busi- Bank, kin Elevator v. Bennett State money. ness and J.B. Hunt lost NPS re- 57, 1994). argues NPS it lawsuit, sponded seeking damages with this has sufficient evidence purpose— of such a predatory pricing for under the federal anti- the statement J.B. Hunt it could trust laws and the Iowa law of interference you “take out.” persuasively One court has prospective advantage. The district suggested that intent is not a useful standard granted summary judgment court1 in favor distinguishing preda between actionable defendants, of the J.B. Hunt ap- and NPS tory pricing healthy price competition and peals. We affirm. competition necessarily because hard entails injuring competitors, “you unsuccessful and competitive To injury establish cannot be a sensible business executive with predatory § pricing claim under 2 of the out understanding prices, the link among Act, 2, plaintiff Sherman success, your firm’s and other firms’ dis prove “that complained of are Farms, Poultry tress.” A.A. Inc. v. Rose appropriate below an measure of its rival’s Farms, Inc., Acre 881 F.2d 1401-02 costs,” competitor and “that the ... had (7th Cir.1989), denied, cert. 494 U.S. dangerous probability recouping its invest (1990). 108 L.Ed.2d 501 ment in prices.” Group below-cost Brooke we are uncertain whether the Ltd. v. Brown & Corp., Williamson Tobacco apply Court of Iowa “pre 209, 222-24, purpose” dominant test when in alleged (1993). Here, L.Ed.2d 168 cannot NPS show predatory pricing. any terference is But in dangerous probability recoupment be event, agree we with the district court that always cause UPS and can USPS take over passing remark J.B. Hunt it skipping eliminate the zone “niche” mar you could “take out” is not the kind of com ket should a like J.B. Hunt or petitive support prima threat that will facie begin charging supraeompetitive prices NPS case of tortious interference. Fischer v. Cf. reaping monopoly profits. pric Unfair Corp., UNIPAC Serv. ing antitrust claims should be viewed with (Iowa 1994). “great skeptical caution eye.” and a Bathke Stores, Inc., Casey’s Accordingly, General 64 F.3d we affirm. PRATT, 1. The HONORABLE ROBERT W. Iowa. States District for the Southern District of Krusenstjerna that s statements m Swanson concurring

HEANEY, Judge, out of intent to take NPS Hunt had the part dissenting spec- merely than NPS market. Rather that, a matter majority agree said was the ulating that this a violation to establish failed Krusenstjerna. Coupled as much to however, view, my law. *3 antitrust federal intent, subsequent conduct Hunt’s J.B. this holding that as by erred the district material issues of certainly genuine raises not Hunt did state J.B. Iowa matter of purpose. predominant fact as to injuring or purpose predominant have more than suffi- was NPS. There destroying of the majority’s correct resolution The jury. to a issue present to this cient evidence the issue not confuse claim should federal dissent. respectfully Group Ltd. v. In Brooke law claim. the state law of interference the Iowa Under Corp., Tobacco & Williamson Brown to required advantage, NPS was prospective 125 L.Ed.2d U.S. prima facie of its elements prove five (1993), Supreme Court the United “(1) contractu- prospective had a that it ease: stated: (2) that defen- relationship; or business al pure malice one an Even act relationship; prospective of the dant knew not, with- against another does improp- (3) intentionally and that defendant more, the federal (4) a claim state under relationship; out erly interfered laws; create a laws not those do the relation- antitrust caused interference defendant’s (5) “pur- materialize; competition or the amount of unfair federal law ship to fail all torts com- Market- remedies resulting damage.” port to afford of the Preferred Ins., engaged in Hawkeye against persons Nat’l or ing Assocs. mitted Life 1990) (citation omit- interstate commerce.” out, ted). majority correctly points As the Hunt v. (quoting 113 S.Ct. 2578 Id. at that J.B. required further to show NPS was 821, 826, Crumboch, injure purpose was predominant Hunt’s added)). (1945) (emphasis Be- L.Ed. 1954 regard, there remain In this destroy NPS. of material genuine issues cause there are warranting a of material fact genuine issues fact, jury whether should determine trial. short, I In a tort. Hunt committed Krusenstjer- president, John When NPS’s remand law claim and on the state reverse manger, Donald na, met remand, the district court. On this case to stated; Swanson, “I’m jurisdiction could the district court retain buy you? Why would buy you. 1367(a), case, see over also stated you out.” Swanson take dismissing the claim exercise discretion of the try NPS but Hunt decided 1367(c), §§ prejudice. See id. without “you were the market zone-skipping 1367(d). immediately targeted easiest.” client, lucrative offered NPS’s most costs, significant took a market

well below Krusenstjer-

loss, a short time and within was forced meeting, NPS

na’s and Swanson’s zone-skipping market.

to leave the Riley, Willey v.

(Iowa 1995), Iowa Court stated that a defen- to demonstrate

that in order purpose was to predominant

dant’s present plaintiff plaintiff, “Specu- mere “intent” and that

evidence of warranting that not evidence”

lation ... jury. In this to a

case be submitted form in the presented evidence