Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02825/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02825-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRUCK-RAIL HANDLING INC., and

QUALITY TRANSPORT, INC.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE

RAILROAD COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 02-02825 JSW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON

PLAINTIFF’S CONSPIRACY

CLAIM

INTRODUCTION

On March 8, 2005, the Court granted Defendant Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad

Company’s (“BNSF”) motion for summary judgment, and granted in part and denied in part the cross

motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs Truck Rail Handling (“TRH”) and Quality Transport

Inc. (“QTI”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”). 

In its order of March 8 (the “March 8 Order”), the Court ordered further briefing from the

parties on the conspiracy to monopolize claim because BNSF had not moved on that claim believing

that Plaintiffs did not intended to pursue it. (See March 8 Order at 24.) 

The parties have now submitted the briefing ordered by the Court, and the matter is ripe for

disposition. Having considered the parties’ pleadings, evidence submitted in support thereof, and

relevant legal authority, the Court finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. See

N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Order, the Court GRANTS

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the conspiracy claim. 

ANALYSIS

Case 3:02-cv-02825-JSW Document 225 Filed 07/11/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

In the March 8 Order the Court concluded that Plaintiffs had not met their burden to establish

this market as a relevant market for antitrust purposes.

2

The Court has previously recited the relevant facts, procedural history and standards

applicable to motions for summary judgment in its March 8 Order and shall not repeat them here. 

Plaintiffs allege that BNSF engaged in a “conspiracy to monopolize ... the dray and liquid material

loading and unloading market,” i.e. the market for transloading of bulk commodities, in violation of

Section 2 of the Sherman Act. (FAC ¶ 68; March 8 Order at 9-10.)1 In order to prevail on a

conspiracy to monopolize claim, Plaintiffs must establish the existence of a combination or conspiracy

to monopolize, the specific intent to monopolize, and anti-competitive acts designed to effect that

intent. See Paladin Associates, Inc. v. Montana Power Co., 328 F.3d 1145, 1158 (9th Cir. 2003);

Freeman v. San Diego Ass’n of Realtors, 322 F.3d 1133, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). As with any

antitrust claim, Plaintiffs also must establish antitrust injury. See Paladin, 328 F.3d at 1158.

Plaintiffs have consistently alleged that the anti-competitive acts in question are BNSF’s tying

leases for its facilities to the execution of a Transload Service Drayage Agreement (the “TSA”), and

that BNSF used the TSA to illegally fix prices. Thus, as with their other claims, Plaintiffs’ conspiracy

claims rest on BNSF’s use of the TSA. The Court already has concluded that the TSA has not been

used to effect an illegal tying arrangement. (Id. at 18-19.) 

Similarly, in its March 8 Order, the Court considered Plaintiffs’ alleged price fixing claim from

both a horizontal and vertical perspective and found that to the extent Plaintiffs’ claims of price fixing

were allegations of vertical price fixing, their claims failed because of their failure to prove the relevant

market. (March 8 Order at 20 n. 14.) The Court concluded that a claim for horizontal price fixing

failed because Plaintiffs had not presented sufficient evidence to show that BNSF actually set the

prices of transloading services in the TSA or impinged upon any transloader’s freedom to set their

own prices. (Id. at 20.) This latter finding is equally applicable to Plaintiffs’ claims of vertical price

fixing. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot establish that BNSF engaged in anti-competitive acts designed

to effectuate the alleged intent to monopolize. BNSF is entitled to judgment on the conspiracy to

monopolize claim as well.

Case 3:02-cv-02825-JSW Document 225 Filed 07/11/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-02825-JSW Document 225 Filed 07/11/05 Page 3 of 3