Concerted Absence from a Typically Trafficked Industry Conference is Competent Summary Judgment Evidence of Group Boycott

The court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment that no Sherman § 1 group boycott occurred and determined plaintiff presented sufficient circumstantial evidence of parallel conduct. “⁠[Plaintiff alleges the] parallel action [came in the form of] declining to attend the 2014 TDA and 2015 AZDA conventions and subsequent conventions, which [defendants] had attended for many years. As defendants point out, there was a significant delay between [one defendant’s] announcement that it would not attend the 2014 TDA convention and [the other defendants’] announcements of the same on April 9, 2014. But the communications between [the defendants] leading up to [the first] announcement that it would not attend the 2014 TDA convention and all three companies’ communications immediately afterward raise an inference that [the first defendant] made its decision not to attend based on the explicit or implied agreement of its competitors to do the same if the TDA refused to drop its partnership with [plaintiff].”

SourceOne Dental, Inc. v. Patterson Companies, Inc. et al, 2-15-cv-05440 (NYED 2018-04-12, Order) (Brian M. Cogan)

2018-04-16T13:48:04+00:00 April 16th, 2018|Antitrust, Docket Report|