Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—N.D. Ohio: Arbitration rejected in tire supplying dispute, (May 9, 2016)
Law Firms Mentioned:Ulmer & Berne LLP | Weisbrod Matteis & Copley
Organizations Mentioned:Horizon Tire NJ, LLC | Horizon Tire, Inc. | LLIT Thailand Co., Ltd. | Linglong Americas, Inc. | Shandong Linglong Tire Co Ltd | Ulmer & Berne, LLP
By Greg Hammond, J.D.
A tire distributor was not entitled to dismissal or stay of breach of contract, tortious interference, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices claims against its supplier, pending arbitration, the federal district court in Cleveland has decided. In denying the motion, the court reasoned that the distributor conceded that the collaboration agreement containing the arbitration provision was invalid, and the distributor further waived its right to arbitrate (Linglong Americas, Inc. v. Horizon Tire, May 6, 2016, Nugent, D.).
Linglong Americas, Inc., Shandong Linglong Tire Co Ltd., and LLIT [Thailand] Co., Ltd., filed suit against Horizon Tire, Inc., alleging that Linglong did not have an exclusive distributorship agreement with Horizon and asserting claims for breach of contract, tortious interference, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices. Linglong subsequently moved to dismiss or stay pending arbitration, based on a collaboration agreement that was raised by Horizon in an amended counterclaim.
The court denied the motion, noting that Linglong was asking the court to enforce provisions of a collaboration agreement to which Linglong claimed that it was not a party; that the agreement had expired and was invalid; and that the agreement had no relationship to the claims asserted against Horizon. Horizon agreed with Linglong that the collaboration agreement is no longer enforceable and affirmatively represented to the court that its claims arise out of facts and circumstances that occurred after the collaboration agreement expired.
In addition, the court concluded that Linglong waived its right to arbitrate by proceeding in a manner wholly inconsistent with arbitration to the prejudice of Horizon.
The case is No. 1:15 CV 1240.
Attorneys: Frances F. Goins (Ulmer & Berne LLP) for Linglong Americas, Inc., Shandong Linglong Tire Co Ltd. and LLIT [Thailand] Co., Ltd. Andrew W. Lamb (Weisbrod Matteis & Copley) for Horizon Tire, Inc. and Horizon Tire NJ, LLC.
Companies: Linglong Americas, Inc.; Horizon Tire, Inc.; Horizon Tire NJ, LLC; Shandong Linglong Tire Co Ltd; LLIT Thailand Co., Ltd.
Cases: FranchisingDistribution OhioNews