Roland MacHinery Company v. Dresser Industries, Inc.
749 F.2d 380 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction, a court must use a 'sliding scale' approach, balancing the irreparable harm to the plaintiff and defendant while weighing this balance against the plaintiff's probability of success on the merits.
Facts:
- Roland Machinery Company (Roland) was a long-time exclusive distributor for International Harvester's construction equipment.
- In 1982, Dresser Industries (Dresser) acquired International Harvester's construction-equipment division and signed a new dealership agreement with Roland.
- The agreement was terminable by either party, without cause, on 90 days’ notice and did not contain an express exclusive-dealing clause.
- Eight months after signing the agreement with Dresser, Roland also became a dealer for Komatsu, a competing manufacturer.
- Several months after discovering Roland's deal with Komatsu, Dresser exercised its contract right and gave Roland 90 days' notice of termination.
- Dresser stated it terminated the agreement because it feared Roland would prioritize Komatsu's products and that Roland's dual-dealership would deter other potential dealers in the area.
- Roland generated about 50% of its revenues from Dresser-related business, with 10% from new equipment sales and 40% from parts, service, and rentals.
Procedural Posture:
- Roland Machinery Company filed suit against Dresser Industries in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
- Roland sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Dresser from terminating their dealership agreement, alleging a violation of Section 3 of the Clayton Act.
- The district court held a hearing and granted Roland's motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The district court conditioned the injunction on Roland maintaining Dresser's approximate market share.
- Dresser Industries, the defendant, appealed the district court's grant of the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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:
Did the district court abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction by finding that the plaintiff dealer was likely to suffer irreparable harm and had a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of its claim that the defendant manufacturer's termination constituted an illegal exclusive-dealing agreement under Section 3 of the Clayton Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge.
Yes. The district court abused its discretion by granting the preliminary injunction. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show irreparable harm and some likelihood of success, after which the court must balance the relative harms, weighing that balance against the likelihood of success on a sliding scale. Here, the district court committed clear error in its assessment of the harms and legal error regarding the merits of the antitrust claim. The district court's finding that Roland would probably go out of business was a clear factual error, as the evidence indicated the termination would be painful but not fatal. Furthermore, the district court failed to consider the anticompetitive effects of its own injunctive order which required Roland to maintain Dresser's market share. With no clear balance of hardships favoring Roland, Roland needed to show it was more likely than not to succeed on the merits. It failed to do so because 1) there was no evidence of an 'agreement' to deal exclusively, as Dresser's unilateral policy and termination of a non-compliant dealer does not constitute a meeting of the minds under antitrust law; and 2) even if an agreement existed, there was no showing of a substantial anticompetitive effect, as the short-term, easily terminable nature of the dealership contracts meant competitors like Komatsu were not foreclosed from the market.
Dissenting - Swygert, Senior Circuit Judge,
No. The district court did not abuse its discretion. The majority improperly substituted its own judgment for that of the district court by conducting a de novo review, rather than applying the highly deferential 'abuse of discretion' standard. The district court's factual finding that Roland could go out of business was supported by evidence of substantial profit loss and intangible harms like loss of goodwill, and the majority's contrary view is speculative. Furthermore, the evidence supported a finding that Roland had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Dresser’s conduct, including surveillance of its dealers, went beyond a mere unilateral refusal to deal permitted by precedent, suggesting an illegal agreement. The district court also correctly found a likely anticompetitive effect, as evidence showed Komatsu had been unable to enter the unique central Illinois market and that Roland was its only viable entry point.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark Seventh Circuit opinion for its clarification of the preliminary injunction standard. Judge Posner's majority opinion methodically synthesizes prior conflicting case law into a coherent, economically-influenced analytical framework known as the 'sliding scale' approach. This framework requires judges to weigh the balance of harms against the plaintiff's probability of success, creating a more flexible and nuanced test. The decision also provides a modern analysis of exclusive-dealing arrangements under the Clayton Act, establishing that short-term, easily terminable contracts are presumptively lawful and that plaintiffs must prove actual harm to the competitive process, not just to an individual competitor.
Unlock the full brief for Roland MacHinery Company v. Dresser Industries, Inc.