Maxwell M. Blecher (argued), of Blecher, Collins & Hoecker, Los Angeles, Cal., for Calnetics.
Cecelia H. Goetz (argued), Herbert Rubin, of Herzfeld & Rubin, New York City, Paul S. Ferber (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., Philip Elman, William R. Weissman, Robert A. Skitol, Mark Schattner, of Wald, Harkrader & Ross, Washington, D. C., Harry B. Swerdlow, Allan Albala, of Swerdlow, Glikbarg & Shimer, P.C., Beverly Hills, Cal., of counsel, for Volkswagen of America, Inc., etc.
G. William Shea (argued), of McCutchen, Black, Verleger & Shea, Los Angeles, Cal., for amicus curiae Porsche.
OPINION
Before BARNES, CHOY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:[* 1]
Volkswagen of America, Inc. (VW), and its wholly owned subsidiary, Volkswagen Products Corporation (Subsidiary), defendants in a private antitrust action brought by Calnetics Corporation,[1] appeal a district court judgment ordering VW’s divestiture of Subsidiary and other equitable relief. VW and Subsidiary also appeal a summary judgment dismissing their counterclaims against Calnetics, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs to Calnetics.
Calnetics cross-appeals from summary judgments and a directed verdict dismissing its claims for damages against VW, Subsidiary, and Volkswagen Pacific, Inc. (Distributor), an independently owned corporation which until 1973[2] distributed VW-imported automobiles and accessories in southern California, southern Nevada, Arizona, and Hawaii.
Distributor appeals from the district court’s denial of its motion to amend its answer to add a counterclaim under § 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13(c).
The summary judgment in favor of Calnetics on each of VW’s counterclaims is affirmed, as is the summary judgment in favor of Calnetics on Subsidiary’s counterclaim based on the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. All other judgments challenged on appeal are reversed. The district court’s denial of Distributor’s motion to add a counterclaim under 15 U.S.C. § 13(c) is also reversed. The district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and deposition copy costs to Calnetics is set aside. A legend of the parties and claims appears in the margin.[3]
- ↑ *Because of the number and complexity of the issues, all members of the panel participated in the writing of this opinion.
- ↑ Meier-Line, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Calnetics Corp., was added to the complaint as an additional plaintiff pursuant to an uncontested motion during the district court’s hearing on equitable relief. “Calnetics” in this opinion refers both to Calnetics Corp. and to Meier-Line, Inc. Throughout this opinion, for convenience, all actions taken by Meier-Line will be attributed to Calnetics.
- ↑ VW and Subsidiary represent in their brief that Distributor abandoned its distribution franchise in 1973 and that VW now sells directly to the dealers in Distributor’s former franchise area.
- ↑ Chart of the causes of action and dispositions:
- Parties:
- VW—Volkswagen of America, the wholly owned subsidiary of Volkswagenwerk, A.G.—handles all American deals.
- Subsidiary—Volkswagen Products Corp., an air-conditioning manufacturer acquired by VW.
- Calnetics—a competing air-conditioning manufacturer that previously sold to Distributor.
- Distributor—Volkswagen Pacific, Inc., an independently owned distributor of VW products—the buyer of the air-conditioning units in this case.
- Delta—another air-conditioning manufacturer, not a party to these proceedings.
- # Meier-Line—a subsidiary of Calnetics (see note 1, supra).
