12.01.2015 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!