Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—SD Tex: Suit Against Steel Maker by Allegedly Disfavored Customer Moved to Maker’s District, (Dec 5, 2012)

By E. Darius Sturmer, J.D.

An antitrust and business tort dispute between a Houston-based supplier of structural steel products known as H-pilings and the manufacturer of those H-pilings was transferred by the federal district court in Houston to the Eastern District of Arkansas at the defending manufacturer’s request. Transfer was appropriate in the interest of justice and because the Arkansas court was clearly more convenient to the parties, the court determined (J.D. Fields & Co., Inc. v. Nucor-Yamato Steel Co., December 4, 2012, Lake, S.).

At its heart, the dispute involved allegations by plaintiff J.D. Fields & Company that the defending manufacturer, Nucor-Yamato Steel Co., engaged in a pattern of providing preferential pricing to another purchaser in the relevant market, thereby placing Fields at a competitive disadvantage. The suit asserted claims for price discrimination in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act, tortious interference with contract, conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract.

The manufacturer’s concurrent motion to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue was sidestepped as a matter rendered moot by the venue change. Although Fields “presented arguments as to the propriety of both personal jurisdiction and venue” in Texas, transfer instead would be “the most appropriate remedy,” in the court’s view.

Up front, the court clarified that venue was proper in the Eastern District of Arkansas. The district was home to the defendant’s principal place of business, the court explained.

Private interest factors also favored transfer, as many of the pertinent documents concerning Nucor’s H-pilings sales to the plaintiff and its competitors were located in Arkansas, as were employees of the manufacturer and its customers who had knowledge of the facts underlying the dispute. The only witnesses located in Texas were the plaintiffs’ own employees, the court observed.

Public interest factors also favored transfer, given that Arkansas courts were more familiar with Arkansas law, which was to apply to the case pursuant to the parties’ choice-of-law provision.

The existence of that forum selection clause, and of the jurisdiction named within, was also a “significant factor” in support of transfer, the court noted.

The court added that even if Nucor was not subject to personal jurisdiction or if venue was not proper, transfer—not dismissal—would be most appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §1406.

The case is Civil Action No. H-12-1918.

Robert Glen Moll (Hill Rivkins LLP) for J.D. Fields & Co., Inc. Robert J. Katerberg (Arnold & Porter LLP) for Nucor-Yamato Steel Co.

Cases: Antitrust TexasNews