D&G, Inc. v. SuperValu, Inc., et al., No. 13-1297 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseD&G filed suit against wholesalers under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15(a), and moved for class certification. The court concluded that this case presented a factual dispute about the real terms of the wholesalers' agreement and this genuine material factual dispute prevented summary judgment as to whether a per se violation occurred; the court denied summary judgment under the rule of reason where D&G submitted enough evidence to create a genuine factual dispute about the relevant market and the injury caused by the wholesalers' alleged antitrust violation; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification for all SuperValu customers in the Midwest region; the court vacated the denial of D&G's request to certify a narrower class of SuperValu customers who were charged according to the ABS formula and supplied from Champaign, Illinois; and the district court correctly concluded that 15 U.S.C. 15b does not render D&G's claims untimely. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil Case - Antitrust. Following an asset exchange and non-compete agreement between the two largest grocery wholesalers, D&G, Inc., a family owned grocery brought antitrust action. Factual disputes remain whether non-compete agreement and actual behavior resulted in a per se antitrust violation. District court erred in grant of summary judgment to wholesalers based on finding that D&G did not properly define the relevant market, as wholesalers had not argued this issue. District court's grant of partial or targeted summary judgment was error. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification. The denial of D&G's request to certify a narrower class of customers is vacated for reconsideration by the district court. District court did not err in concluding the claims were untimely.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.