Mozart Co. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

Good Law
593 F. Supp. 1506·1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23509
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 18, 1984C-81-0531-MHPCalifornia9,996 words

Opinion

Opinion

Patel, J.

OPINION AND ORDER

This is an antitrust action, presently before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff The Mozart Company, successor in interest to Eurasian Automotive Products, Inc., a wholesale automotive parts distributor, brought suit against defendant Mercedes-Benz of North America (“MBNA”) alleging violations of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and § 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 2, and 14. Mozart contends that provisions of the Dealer Agreement between MBNA and each Mercedes-Benz franchised dealer constitute a per se tying violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 14. Plaintiff alleges additionally that MBNA conspired with the franchised dealers to boycott independent replacement parts distributors, such as Eurasian, in further violation of § 1, and also attempted to monopolize the sale in the United States of replacement parts usable in Mercedes automobiles in violation of § 2. Defendant objects to the use of a per se rule and argues that a rule of reason standard should apply in this case. Since, according to defendant, the evidence Mozart has introduced concerning MBNA’s alleged conduct involving threats, coercion and intimidation would be insufficient…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.