Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellants, Infusion Resources Inc. and Diabetes Resources Inc., d/b/a Insulin Infusion Specialties, appeal the decision of the district court granting the appellee, Minimed Inc.’s, motion for summary judgment dismissing IIS’ following causes of action: price discrimination claims under the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. �13(a)/�2(a) Clayton Act, and the Louisiana Price Discrimination Act, La. R.S. �51:331; a claim for lack of fair dealing under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, La. � 51:1409; and claims for breach of the implied duty of good faith, breach of contract, defamation and violation of trade secrets. IIS also appeals the district court’s denial of its Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion for reconsideration. HOLDING:Affirmed. To recover damages for a claim under �13(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act/�2(a) Clayton Act claim, a plaintiff must prove four facts: 1. sales made in interstate commerce; 2. the commodities sold to IIS were of the same grade and quality as those sold to other purchasers; 3. MiniMed discriminated in price between IIS and other purchasers; and 4. that the discrimination had a prohibited effect on competition. Lycon Inc. v. Juenke, 250 F.3d 285 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 209 (2001). RPA �13(a) includes two basic types of injury, primary line and secondary line. Eximco Inc. v. Trane Co., 737 F.2d 505 (5th Cir.), reh’g granted in part , amended in part on other grounds , 748 F.2d 287 (5th Cir. 1984). Secondary-line injury, which IIS claims to have incurred, results from price discrimination between favored and disfavored buyers. Texaco Inc. v. Hasbrouck, 496 U.S. 543 (1990). The competitive nexus is established if the disfavored purchaser and favored purchaser compete at the same functional level and within the same geographic market at the time of the price discrimination. IIS has established that both Secure Care Medical and National Diabetes Pharmacy compete at the same functional level as IIS, i.e., they are all retail sellers of MiniMed’s pumps. Additionally, IIS established, at least in respect to National Diabetes Pharmacy, a MiniMed distributor in Virginia, that it operated in the same geographic market because Virginia was one of IIS’s contractual territories. IIS, however, has not submitted evidence that either Secure Care Medical or National Diabetes Pharmacy qualified as “favored purchasers” at the time of the alleged price discrimination, when the agreement with MiniMed was no longer in effect. Thus, IIS has not shown actual competition with a favored purchaser at the time of the alleged price discrimination and has failed to meet its burden on this element. The court finds no evidence of IIS competing with any other pump distributor in Louisiana at the time of the alleged price discrimination, and therefore the district court was correct in dismissing IIS price discrimination claim under the LPDS. This court in Chemical Distribs. Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 1 F.3d 1478 (5th Cir. 1993), did not indicate that any part of Turner v. Purina Mills Inc., 989 F.2d 1419 (5th Cir. 1993), had been invalidated. Because IIS’ case significantly resembles Turner more than it does Exxon, the district court’s holding that there were no actionable LUTPA claims was correct. Because IIS merely repackaged its original damages report, and submitted it as an amended report to support its remaining non-antitrust claims, the district court was correct to exclude it. Once the amended damages report was excluded, IIS could not show any damages resulting from its remaining non-antitrust claims. Therefore, the district court was correct in dismissing these remaining claims because IIS had failed to submit proper proof of damages. IIS argues that all that is necessary to show harm under �2(a) of the Clayton Act for the purpose of establishing entitlement to treble damages pursuant to �4 of the Clayton Act is the presence of price discrimination. This is incorrect. The Supreme Court in J. Truett Payne Co. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 451 U.S. 557 (1981), stated that a showing of price discrimination is sufficient when seeking an injunction under �2(a), but not when damages are sought. Because IIS has failed to show actual injury, it failed to satisfy element four of its �13(a) RPA claim, as well as failing to show that it is entitled to treble damages under �4 of the Clayton Act. Because the court finds that IIS failed to submit proof of competition with a favored purchaser during the time of the alleged price discrimination, the district court’s denial of IIS’s Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration was correct. OPINION:Stewart, J.; Higginbotham, Stewart and Prado, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.