Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Colo.: Automotive paint distributor unable to certify summary judgment order, (Nov 5, 2014)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

Automotive paint distributor JTS Choice Enterprises, Inc. was unable to certify orders granting summary judgment in favor of paint coating manufacturer E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co. and denying JTS’ motion to reconsider. The federal district court in Denver determined that although its orders were final for purposes of certification, the remaining counterclaims are not entirely separate from the original claims, and any prejudice suffered by JTS—by denying its motion for certification—would be heavily outweighed by the interests of judicial economy (JTS Choice Enterprises, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co., November 3, 2014, Martinez, W.).

In February, the court granted DuPont’s motion for summary judgment on JTS’ seven antitrust claims under federal and state law, as well as state law claims for common law fraud, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and a violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (2014-1 Trade Cases ¶78,699). Specifically, JTS contended—in part—that DuPont unlawfully restrained competition between its “jobbers” by providing financial assistance to certain favored distributors, and that it attempted to monopolize and conspired to monopolize the Colorado market for automotive coatings. In addition, JTS alleged that DuPont engaged in fraud by claiming that it was taking steps to stop one of JTS’ competitors from poaching its customers, and that it breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by not treating distributors equally and by not stopping the purported poaching.

The court denied JTS’ motion to reconsider the order of summary judgment, finding that JTS failed to cite an intervening change in the law, any evidence that was unavailable at the time of the original briefing, or any need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Consequently, the court refused to allow JTS to take “a second bite at the summary judgment apple.” JTS therefore moved for certification of the court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of DuPont and denying JTS’ motion to reconsider.

To grant certification under Rule 54(b), the court was required to find: (1) that the judgment upon which certification is sought is final in the sense that it is an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of multiple claims action, and (2) that there is no just reason to delay entry of judgment.

First, the court determined that its order granting DuPont’s motion for summary judgment was final for the purposes of Rule 54(b), noting that it finally and fully resolved all of JTS’ claims against DuPont. However, it concluded that there was no just reason to delay entry of judgment. Specifically, the court determined that JTS’ claims are not so separable from DuPont’s counterclaims and that there is significant factual overlap weighing against certification. Further, in considering the equities in this case, the court concluded that any prejudice JTS will suffer by denying its motion for certification, would be heavily outweighed by the interests of judicial economy.

The case number is 11-cv-03143-WJM-KMT.

Attorneys: Lauren Elizabeth Mosse Thompson (Theodore W. Rosen, PC) for JTS Choice Enterprises, Inc. David Matthew Stauss (Ballard Spahr, LLP) for E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co.

Companies: JTS Choice Enterprises, Inc.; E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co.

Cases: Antitrust ColoradoNews