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 4 of 34<br />
allegations, or mere suspicions <strong>in</strong> attempt<strong>in</strong>g to survive a summary judgment motion. Id.<br />
(cit<strong>in</strong>g Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)). Distilled to its essence, <strong>the</strong><br />
summary judgment standard requires <strong>the</strong> non-mov<strong>in</strong>g party to create a “sufficient disagreement<br />
to require submission [of <strong>the</strong> evidence] to a jury.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 251-52.<br />
Several <strong>court</strong>s have noted that summary disposition of antitrust cases is difficult<br />
because of <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>herent factual complexity and because motive and <strong>in</strong>tent are paramount<br />
considerations. See e.g., Poller v. Columbia Broadcast<strong>in</strong>g Sys., Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 473 (1962).<br />
However, complexity does not mean that summary disposition is <strong>the</strong>reby precluded or even<br />
disfavored <strong>in</strong> antitrust law. Capital Imag<strong>in</strong>g Assoc., P.C. v. Mohawk Valley Medical Assoc.,<br />
Inc., 996 F.2d 537, 541 (2d Cir. 1993). Ra<strong>the</strong>r, summary judgment may be particularly<br />
important <strong>in</strong> antitrust cases to prevent lengthy and drawn-out litigation that has a chill<strong>in</strong>g effect<br />
on competitive market <strong>for</strong>ces. Id. The present motions will be considered <strong>in</strong> light of <strong>the</strong>se<br />
standards.<br />
Procedural Background<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs, Race <strong>Tire</strong>s, Inc., a Division of Specialty <strong>Tire</strong>s of America, Inc., and<br />
Specialty <strong>Tire</strong>s of America Inc., <strong>in</strong>itiated this lawsuit on September 25, 2007, by <strong>the</strong> fil<strong>in</strong>g of a<br />
five-count Compla<strong>in</strong>t aga<strong>in</strong>st only one defendant, <strong>Hoosier</strong> Rac<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Tire</strong> Corp. (“<strong>Hoosier</strong>”).<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs alleged Monopolization <strong>in</strong> violation of Section 2 of <strong>the</strong> Sherman Act (Count I),<br />
Conspiracy to Restra<strong>in</strong> Trade <strong>in</strong> violation of Section 1 of <strong>the</strong> Sherman Act (Count II),<br />
Attempted Monopolization <strong>in</strong> violation of Section 2 of <strong>the</strong> Sherman Act (Count III), Conspiracy<br />
4