Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—M.D. Ala.: Fuel supplier’s post-answer motion for jury trial granted, (Aug 11, 2014)

By Edward L. Puzzo, J.D.

A fuel supplier was entitled to a jury trial, despite its failure to make such a demand when filing its answer to Alabama Motor Fuel Marketing Act claims, the federal district court in Montgomery, Alabama has ruled. The issues at trial primarily will be those for which a jury might have been demanded, and granting the motion would not prejudice the plaintiff (Entec Stations, Inc. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., August 6, 2014, Fuller, M.).

Entec Stations, operators of gas stations, brought sales below cost claims under the Alabama Motor Fuel Marketing Act against Murphy Oil. Over a month after it filed its answer, Murphy Oil moved to add a jury demand pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(b), which permits the court to order a jury trial on any issue for which a jury might have been demanded.

Legal vs. equitable. The initial issue, the court explained, was to determine whether the plaintiff’s claims were legal in nature, “for which a jury might have been demanded,” rather than equitable in nature.

Entec’s claims were brought under the Alabama Motor Fuel Marketing Act, which attempts to prevent fuel sellers from harming their competitors by selling fuel below costs and subsidizing the below-cost sales with other operations. As such, the claims were analogous to an action for unfair competition, a recognized common law tort legal in nature, the court opined.

Entec also sought injunctive relief and statutory damages for lost profits. Injunctive relief is clearly equitable in nature and thus not entitled to a jury trial. However, the claim for statutory damages—i.e., actual damages for the loss of sales or profits resulting from unfair competition—is a quintessential legal claim for which a jury might have been demanded, stated the court.

Untimely jury requests. The court also observed that the rule in the Eleventh Circuit regarding untimely requests for jury trials is that they should be granted in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary. The court noted that the delay in defendant’s jury request, made one month after its answer, was insignificant and that the motion would not disrupt the court’s schedule or work any prejudice upon plaintiffs. Thus, the court ruled, Murphy Oil’s motion for a jury trial would be granted.

The case is Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-380-MEF.

Attorneys: Harold Dean Mooty, Jr. (Mooty & Associates PC) for Entec Stations, Inc., Major Oil Co., Inc., Russell Oil Co., Inc., Kwik Shop Stores, Inc., and Slidell Oil Co., Inc. Amber McGowan Whillock (Starnes Davis Florie LLP) for Murphy Oil USA, Inc.

Companies: Entec Stations, Inc.; Major Oil Co., Inc.; Russell Oil Co. Inc.; Kwik Shop Stores, Inc.; Slidell Oil Co., Inc.; Murphy Oil USA, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust AlabamaNews