USA Petroleum Company v. Atlantic Richfield Company

859 F.2d 687 57 USLW 2249 , 1988-2 Trade Cases 68,255 USA PETROLEUM COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 87-5681. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 4, 1987. Decided Oct. 7, 1988. Maxwell E. Blecher, Blecher & Collins, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Ronald C. Redcay, Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before ALARCON, NELSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges. REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: 1 USA Petroleum Company (USA) sued Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) for violations of the Sherman Act, the Robinson-Patman Act, the Cartwright Act, and various state laws. USA subsequently voluntarily withdrew with prejudice its claim under section 2 of the Sherman Act. ARCO moved for summary judgment on USA's claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1 , and the district court granted its motion. The court entered judgment for ARCO under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), and USA timely appealed. We reverse. I. 2 ARCO is an integrated oil company which, among other things, markets…

USA Petroleum Company (USA) sued Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) for violations of the Sherman Act, the Robinson-Patman Act, the Cartwright Act, and various state laws. USA subsequently voluntarily withdrew with prejudice its claim under section 2 of the Sherman Act. ARCO *689 moved for summary judgment on USA’s claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 , and the district court granted its motion. The court entered judgment for ARCO under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), and USA timely appealed. We reverse.

I.

ARCO is an integrated oil company which, among other things, markets gasoline in the western United States. It sells gasoline to consumers both directly and indirectly through ARCO-brand dealers. USA is an independent marketer of gasoline, which it sells at retail under the brand name USA. USA competes directly with ARCO dealers at the retail level.

USA alleges that ARCO conspired with retail service station dealers selling ARCO-brand gasoline to fix retail prices at below-market levels. USA alleges that “ARCO’s strategy was to eliminate the independents by fixing and subsidizing below-market prices and siphoning off the independents’ volumes and profits,” and that it…

dissenting:

I.

In this antitrust action, plaintiff/appellant USA Petroleum Company (“USA”) appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant/appellee Atlantic Richfield Company (“ARCO”) for . USA’s failure to demon *698 strate “antitrust injury.” I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the district court erred. Because USA failed to present any facts showing antitrust injury, I would affirm.

II.

USA, a gasoline retailer, brought this action to challenge ARCO’s marketing program in which ARCO discontinued its credit cards and offered lower gasoline prices to consumers. USA claimed ARCO, a major integrated oil company, violated section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (1982), by conspiring with certain retail dealers to set retail prices for ARCO-brand gasoline at levels USA could not match. USA claimed ARCO violated section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 (1982), by attempting to monopolize the retail gasoline market through the “predatory pricing” of its ARCO-brand gasoline. USA also asserted claims for violations of the Robinson-Patman Act, the Cartwright Act and various state laws.

USA claimed ARCO’s increased…