Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—S.D. Ind.: Volvo dealership given green light to assert price discrimination claim, (Sep 29, 2014)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

In a cross fire of motions that disposed of various claims by and against heavy truck manufacturer Volvo Trucks N.A. and a dealership, the dealership emerged partially victorious, and was granted leave to file a second amended complaint setting forth a price discrimination claim. Additionally, Volvo’s sole remaining claim, seeking declaratory judgment that good cause existed to terminate the Dealer Agreement on the terms and conditions provided therein, was dismissed by the federal district court in Indianapolis (Volvo Trucks N.A. v. Andy Mohr Truck Center, September 25, 2014, Lawrence, W.).

Background. Volvo and Andy Mohr entered into a Volvo Dealer Sales and Service Agreement in March 2010. However, the relationship turned sour after Mohr realized that Volvo would not grant him a Mack Trucks franchise in a separate transaction, which he alleged Volvo represented when he entered into the Dealer Agreement. Conversely, Volvo alleged that Mohr failed to build a new state of the art facility for the Volvo Trucks franchise, which he allegedly promised prior to the written agreement. After a myriad of claims were dismissed, Volvo was left with its sole declaratory judgment claim, and Mohr was left with his unfair practices, deceptive franchise practices, Crime Victims Act (CVA), and breach of contract claims against Volvo. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Additionally, Mohr moved for leave to file a second amended complaint, and Volvo moved for reconsideration, and to limit expert testimony.

Price discrimination. Mohr moved for leave to file a second amended complaint against Volvo, seeking to add two claims: (1) price discrimination under the Indiana Unfair Practices Act (IUPA), and (2) a claim based on Volvo’s bad faith effort to terminate Andy Mohr Truck Center from the Dealer Agreement, under Indiana and federal law. The court partially granted the motion, by allowing Mohr to file a second amended complaint alleging his price discrimination claim. It reasoned that a broad reading of Mohr’s complaint demonstrated that he previously pleaded a price discrimination claim in his complaint, and he was not required to plead legal theories at that time. However, the motion was denied with regard to the bad faith effort to terminate the Dealer Agreement. Specifically, the court found that the evidence submitted by Mohr only demonstrated that the parties sued each other because their business relationship deteriorated, not because of any plan to retaliate against Mohr.

Reconsideration. Volvo also brought a motion for reconsideration on its motion for judgment on the pleadings with regard to Mohr’s IUPA and breach of contract claims. First, the court found that Andy Mohr Truck Center is a franchise under the definition set forth in the Indiana Deceptive Franchise Practices Act (IDFPA), and therefore denied the motion for reconsideration on that basis. However, the court did grant the motion with regard to the breach of contract claim, as Mohr was barred from using the IDFPA as a defense to render the limitations of remedies clause unenforceable, due to the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Consequently, Mohr’s breach of contract claim was dismissed.

Volvo’s declaratory judgment claim. In support of its declaratory judgment claim, that Volvo had good cause to terminate the Dealer Agreement, Volvo alleged that Mohr misrepresented the material fact that it would build a new facility for the Volvo truck franchise. However, the court noted that the supposed oral agreement was made prior to the execution of the Dealer Agreement, and that—due to the integration clause found within the written agreement—any promise to build a new facility was superseded by the Dealer Agreement. Mohr was therefore granted summary judgment over Volvo’s declaratory judgment claim.

Mohr’s remaining claims. Similar to the demise of Volvo’s declaratory judgment claim, Mohr’s IUPA claim—alleging that Volvo engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by falsely representing that it would give Mohr Truck a Mack Trucks franchise—was unavailing, as the alleged Mack Trucks agreement was also made prior to the Dealer Agreement. In addition, the CVA claim was failed, as Mohr was found to be merely attempting to resurrect its dismissed breach of contract claim, and the Indiana legislature did not intend for the CVA to apply to breach of contract disputes. Both claims were thus dismissed.

Expert testimony. Lastly, the court considered Volvo’s motion to limit the expert report on damages Mohr incurred as a result of the purported Mack Trucks misrepresentation. The court noted however, that Volvo was essentially asking the court for an advisory opinion regarding an alleged supplementation that had yet to occur. Finding that it would be inappropriate to provide such an opinion, the court denied Volvo’s motion to limit expert testimony.

The case number is 1:12-cv-448-WTL-DKL.

Attorneys: Billy M. Donley (Baker Hostetler, LLP) for Volvo Trucks N.A. Jessica M. Lindemann (Barnes & Thornburg LLP) for Andy Mohr Truck Center.

Companies: Volvo Trucks N.A.; Andy Mohr Truck Center

Cases: FranchisingDistribution IndianaNews