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
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Case 2:07-cv-01294-TFM Document 263 Filed 09/15/2009 Page 6 of 34<br />
lawsuit was <strong>in</strong>itiated and seven (7) months after <strong>the</strong> expiration of <strong>the</strong> deadl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>for</strong> seek<strong>in</strong>g leave<br />
to amend, to add a new claim based on an additional legal <strong>the</strong>ory, which would require<br />
additional written discovery and depositions. See Sealed Document No. 155.<br />
Background<br />
The history between <strong>the</strong> parties to this antitrust lawsuit is lengthy and contentious.<br />
The Court has noted on numerous occasions <strong>the</strong> considerable tension among <strong>the</strong> respective<br />
parties and <strong>the</strong>ir attorneys.<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs, Race <strong>Tire</strong>s America, Inc., a Division of Speciality <strong>Tire</strong>s of America, Inc.;<br />
Speciality <strong>Tire</strong>s of America, Inc.; Specialty <strong>Tire</strong>s of America (Pennsylvania), Inc., and<br />
Speciality <strong>Tire</strong>s of America (Tennessee), LLC (collectively referred to as Pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs or “STA”)<br />
and <strong>Hoosier</strong> compete <strong>in</strong> sell<strong>in</strong>g rac<strong>in</strong>g tires used <strong>in</strong> auto rac<strong>in</strong>g events sponsored or promoted<br />
by DMS, and o<strong>the</strong>r sanction<strong>in</strong>g bodies, race track owners, promoters, and tour series.<br />
Competition between STA and <strong>Hoosier</strong> <strong>in</strong>cludes vy<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong> s<strong>in</strong>gle tire rule contracts with<br />
sanction<strong>in</strong>g bodies.<br />
STA alleges that <strong>Hoosier</strong> has greater than a 70% market share <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> dirt oval race<br />
track market, and an even greater market share <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> market <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> sale of race tires <strong>in</strong><br />
sanctioned dirt oval track races. Third Amended Compla<strong>in</strong>t, at 18. STA contends that<br />
<strong>Hoosier</strong> acquired and ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed its monopoly power by enter<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to anticompetitive<br />
exclusive deal<strong>in</strong>g agreements with sanction<strong>in</strong>g companies and with <strong>in</strong>dividual track owners /<br />
promoters.<br />
6