Rutman Wine Company v. E. & J. Gallo Winery

Rutman Wine Company (“Rutman”) appeals from the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of Counts 1-4 of its Second Amended Complaint. These counts charge appellee E. & J. Gallo Winery (“Gallo”) and nonparty Wine Distributors, Inc. (“WDI”) with nonprice-related violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 2 (1986), sections 2(d) and 2(e) of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 13 (d), (e) (1986), and Ohio’s Valentine Antitrust Act, Ohio Revised Code §§ 1331.01-.14. Rut-man seeks not less than $7 million in damages and injunctive relief requiring, inter alia, that Gallo reinstate Rutman as a distributor.

The Northern District of Ohio transferred the case on defendant’s motion to the Eastern District of California in 1984. The district court dismissed the First Amended Complaint because plaintiff’s allegations of injury to itself did not establish the required injury to competition. Although plaintiff amended, the court dismissed counts of the Second Amended Complaint due to the same deficiency. The court also concluded that defendant’s alleged discrimination against Rutman in providing certain services did not show that plaintiff’s ability to compete with…