in the united states district court for the - Hoosier Racing Tire
in the united states district court for the - Hoosier Racing Tire
in the united states district court for the - Hoosier Racing Tire
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Case 2:07-cv-01294-TFM Document 263 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 28 of 34<br />
distributor to provide <strong>the</strong> required tires. In mak<strong>in</strong>g this decision, <strong>the</strong> sanction<strong>in</strong>g body may take<br />
<strong>in</strong>to account both <strong>the</strong> quoted price of <strong>the</strong> tire and <strong>the</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t fund and promotional fees <strong>the</strong><br />
manufacturer or its distributor is offer<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
However, what is absent from <strong>the</strong> record is any evidence that a supplier, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g<br />
STA, or a distributor, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g STA’s distributor(s) is prevented from (i) call<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong><br />
sanction<strong>in</strong>g bodies and urg<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> next contract be awarded to that supplier or from<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rwise promot<strong>in</strong>g its product or (ii) mak<strong>in</strong>g its own proposals <strong>for</strong> an exclusive contract.<br />
The summary judgment record demonstrates that <strong>the</strong> sanction<strong>in</strong>g bodies clearly want<br />
s<strong>in</strong>gle tire rules, and that both <strong>Hoosier</strong> and STA compete to have <strong>the</strong>ir tires selected.<br />
Competition to become <strong>the</strong> exclusive supplier “is a vital <strong>for</strong>m of rivalry, and often <strong>the</strong> most<br />
powerful one, which <strong>the</strong> antitrust laws encourage ra<strong>the</strong>r than suppress.” Menasha Corp. v.<br />
News America Market<strong>in</strong>g In-Store, Inc., 354 F.3d 661, 663 (7th Cir. 2004). Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, <strong>the</strong><br />
Court f<strong>in</strong>ds and rules that where, as here, a sanction<strong>in</strong>g body freely decides to adopt a s<strong>in</strong>gle tire<br />
rule, and <strong>the</strong>n freely selects a supplier, no antitrust violation is present as a matter of law -<br />
ei<strong>the</strong>r under Section 1 or Section 2 of <strong>the</strong> Sherman Act.<br />
C. STA has not suffered an “Antitrust Injury” and, thus, does not have stand<strong>in</strong>g to br<strong>in</strong>g<br />
this action<br />
Defendants argue that STA lacks stand<strong>in</strong>g to br<strong>in</strong>g this action because STA cannot<br />
demonstrate that it has susta<strong>in</strong>ed an “antitrust <strong>in</strong>jury,” which requires that <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>jury be<br />
“causally l<strong>in</strong>ked to an illegal presence <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> market.” Brunswick , 429 U.S. at 489. STA<br />
responds that “[t]he harm <strong>in</strong> this case is from <strong>the</strong> reduction <strong>in</strong> competition on price and quality,<br />
and <strong>the</strong> restriction of consumer choice, through an entrenched monopolist’s ma<strong>in</strong>tenance of<br />
28