Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—E.D. Wash.: Consumer protection claim remains in question in water bottling dispute, (Jan 21, 2016)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

A water bottling and distributing firm could proceed with allegations that a water company violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA), the federal district court in Spokane, Washington, has decided. In denying the water company’s motion for summary judgment on the WCPA claim, the court could not conclude that the distributor established that the water company’s actions had an effect on the public interest, or that the water company established its right to summary judgment (Connelly Co. v. Primo Water Corp., January 19, 2016, Quackenbush, J.).

The Connelly Co. contracted with Primo Water to bottle and distribute water under the Primo label. However, after Primo ended the business relationship, Connelly filed suit, alleging that Primo engaged in fraudulent inducement and unfair business practices in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Primo moved for summary judgment.

WCPA claim stands. Connelly argued that Primo’s conduct had the potential for repetition and that Primo terminated its agreements with many other local and regional distributors. The court noted that, while termination of these other agreements did not establish wrongdoing, it was supportive of the broader impact of Primo’s actions. Nevertheless, the court concluded that it could not find, at this juncture, that Connelly established an impact on the public interest or that Primo has established its right to summary judgment on the WCPA claim.

Breach of contract, fraud. However, the breach of contract claim, which was based on an alleged regional operator agreement, was summarily dismissed. The court concluded that, because no agreement was ever materialized, there was no written contract upon which to base a breach of contract claim. Because Connelly failed to set forth how any alleged statement was false, the court concluded that Connelly did not adequately plead fraud. The motion for summary judgment was therefore also granted with regard to the fraud claim.

The case is No. 2:14-CV-00340-JLQ.

Attorneys: Chris Alan Montgomery (Montgomery Law Firm) for Connelly Co. Inc. Scott Christopher Cifrese (Paine Hamblen Coffin Brooke & Miller) and William C. Schroeder (Paine Hamblen LLP) for Primo Water Corp.

Companies: Connelly Co. Inc.; Primo Water Corp.

Cases: FranchisingDistribution StateUnfairTradePractices WashingtonNews