Morton's Market v. Gustafson's
198 F. 3d 823 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Clayton Act, the four-year statute of limitations for a private antitrust action is tolled during a related government proceeding if there is a "real relationship" between the two, even if the means and objectives differ. Additionally, the statute is tolled by fraudulent concealment until a plaintiff, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered the facts forming the basis of the claim, with the question of inquiry notice being a matter for the jury.
Facts:
- Beginning in the early 1970s, a group of Florida dairies, including Gustafson’s Dairy, Inc., Borden, Inc., and others (the Dairies), conspired to rig bids for contracts to supply milk to public school districts.
- The Dairies also allegedly engaged in a separate but related conspiracy to fix, raise, and maintain the wholesale prices of dairy products sold to commercial retailers, including Morton’s Market, Inc. and J & J Produce & Deli, Inc.
- In mid-1987, the United States and the State of Florida began investigating anti-competitive activities in the Florida dairy industry.
- In February 1988, major Florida newspapers published articles detailing the state's lawsuit and federal investigation into the Dairies' school milk bid-rigging scheme.
- The principals of Morton’s Market and J & J Produce became aware of these news reports regarding the bid-rigging investigations.
- Following the news reports, the plaintiffs did not undertake any investigation into whether the Dairies were also fixing the wholesale price of milk sold to retailers.
- Pet, Inc., one of the alleged conspirators, sold its dairy business in 1985.
- Southland Corporation, another alleged conspirator, sold its dairy business in 1988.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 1, 1993, Morton’s Market, Inc. and J & J Produce & Deli, Inc. filed separate class-action antitrust lawsuits against the Dairies in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
- The lawsuits alleged that the Dairies violated the Sherman Act by conspiring to fix the wholesale prices of dairy products.
- The Dairies moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the Clayton Act's four-year statute of limitations.
- Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuing nature of the conspiracy, fraudulent concealment by the Dairies, and the government's prior antitrust proceedings against the Dairies.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Dairies, holding that the actions were time-barred.
- The plaintiffs, Morton’s Market and J & J Produce (appellants), appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a private antitrust lawsuit for price-fixing barred by the four-year statute of limitations when it was filed more than four years after the conspiracy allegedly ended, but where the government had initiated related bid-rigging prosecutions and the plaintiffs claim fraudulent concealment?
Opinions:
Majority - Hill, Senior Circuit Judge
No, the lawsuit is not time-barred against most of the defendants. A private antitrust lawsuit may proceed where the statute of limitations was tolled by either a continuing violation, a related government proceeding, or fraudulent concealment. First, in a continuing price-fixing conspiracy, a new cause of action accrues with each sale at the inflated price, creating a jury question as to whether injurious sales occurred within the limitations period. Second, the government's bid-rigging prosecutions statutorily tolled the statute of limitations under 15 U.S.C. § 16(i) because there was a 'real relationship' between the bid-rigging and the commercial price-fixing; both involved the same conspirators, geographic area, and general purpose of eliminating price competition. Third, summary judgment on fraudulent concealment was improper because whether publicity about bid-rigging put plaintiffs on 'inquiry notice' of price-fixing is a question of fact for the jury, not a matter of law. However, the claim against Pet, Inc. is time-barred because its 1985 sale of its dairy constituted an effective withdrawal from the conspiracy, starting the statute of limitations running as to it at that time.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of tolling doctrines in antitrust cases, reinforcing a broad interpretation of the 'real relationship' test for statutory tolling under 15 U.S.C. § 16(i). It establishes that government actions can toll the statute for private claims involving different anticompetitive means, so long as the underlying conspiracies are intertwined. Critically, the court holds that inquiry notice for fraudulent concealment is a fact-intensive jury question, rejecting the legal rule that notice of one type of corporate malfeasance automatically triggers a duty to investigate all other potential wrongs. This protects plaintiffs from losing meritorious claims where defendants' concealment was effective, and it shifts the summary judgment burden to defendants to prove conclusively that a diligent investigation would have uncovered the claim.
