Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Minn.: Post-judgment relief from dismissal of price fixing claims denied, (Jul 23, 2014)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

In an action by a contractor against a manufacturer of fast-set spray foam installation equipment and several distributors for allegedly conspiring to exclude competition and fix prices for fast-set equipment, the contractor was not entitled to post-judgment relief from the dismissal of its antitrust claims, the federal district court in Minneapolis has ruled. Thus, the contractor’s motion to amend or alter the judgment was denied (Insulate SB, Inc. v. Advanced Finishing Systems, Inc., July 21, 2014, Montgomery, A.).

Graco Inc. manufactures fast-set equipment that is used primary by contractors to install spray foam insulation in residential and commercial buildings. The sale of fast-set equipment occurs almost exclusively through specialized distributors who act as intermediaries between the manufacturer and contractors. In 2013, Insulate SB, Inc., a contractor using fast-set spray foam equipment, filed a putative class action complaint, alleging that Graco conspired with its distributors to deny its competitors access to the fast-set equipment distribution network. Specifically, Insulate SB alleged that Graco and the distributors entered into exclusivity agreements, boycotted competing products, fixed prices, and controlled geographic distribution areas. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted and Insulate moved to amend or alter the judgment.

Price fixing conspiracy claims. The court determined that Insulate was not entitled to post-judgment relief from the dismissal order for failure to state a plausible antitrust claim. The plaintiff was on notice of the defendants’ challenges to its complaint and could have sought leave to amend before the case was dismissed, but failed to do so. Moreover, Insulate was attempting to introduce new legal theories that could have been raised prior to the entry of the judgment. Finally, Insulate failed to show that a manifest error of law or fact was committed or new evidence was discovered that would warrant a different outcome, the court concluded.

The case is No. 13-2664.

Attorneys: Christopher A. Nedeau (Nossaman LLP) and Richard A. Lockridge (Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP) for Insulate SB, Inc. Stephen P. Safranski (Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, LLP) for Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota, Inc. Lewis A. Remele (Bassford Remele P.A.) for Advanced Finishing Systems, Inc., Airtech Spray Systems, C.H. Reed, Inc., C.J. Spray, Inc., Coast Industrial Systems, Inc., Coatings Holdings, Ltd., Demilec (USA), LLC, Engineered Distribution Specialties, LLC, Golden State Paint Corp., Intech Equipment & Supply, LLC, Marco Group International, Inc., MCC Equipment & Service Center, Specialty Products, Inc., Spray Foam Systems, LLC, Spray-Quip, Inc., and Ultimate Linings, Ltd.

Companies: Insulate SB, Inc.; Graco Inc.; Graco Minnesota, Inc.; Advanced Finishing Systems, Inc.; Airtech Spray Systems; C.H. Reed, Inc.; C.J. Spray, Inc.; Coast Industrial Systems, Inc.; Coatings Holdings, Ltd.; Demilec (USA), LLC; Engineered Distribution Specialties, LLC; Golden State Paint Corp.; Intech Equipment & Supply, LLC; Marco Group International, Inc.; MCC Equipment & Service Center; Specialty Products, Inc.; Spray Foam Systems, LLC; Spray-Quip, Inc.; Ultimate Linings, Ltd.

Cases: Antitrust MinnesotaNews