FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 1, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 04- 1004 0 D. C. Docket N o. 01-00202 -CV -W CO- 2 HAROLD BRUCE LONDON, CHRIS TINE SAUNDERS LOND ON, Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us FIELDALE FARMS CORP ORATION, D ef en dants -Appe lle es . Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia ( June 1, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , D U BIN A and B L A CK , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. DU BIN A, Circuit Judge:A broiler is a baby chick. 1 Appellants, H arold Bruce London and Christi ne London, appeal the district c o u rt ’s o r d e r

g r a n t i n g s u mmary j u d g me n tt o ap p e l l e e / d e f e n d a n t , F i e l d a l e F a rms Co rp or at ion , on the L ondo ns’ P ac ke rs and S toc ky ar ds A ct , 7 U . S. C. § 18 1 et se q. , (“ PS A ”) r et al ia tio n and i m pr ope r w ei ghi ng c la im s. T he L ondo ns a lso appe al the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g F ie lda le ’ s m oti on f or j udgm en t a s am atte r of

lawon the L ondo ns’ P SAte rm inatio n c la im and s ta te lawbr ea chof

c ontra ct and f ra ud cl ai m s. F or

the r ea sons that f

oll ow , w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de rs . BACKGRO UND A. F ac ts Fi el da le is anint eg rate d po ultry c om pany w hic h e nte rs int o po ultry gr ow ing co ntr ac ts w ithgr ow er s. F ie lda le ow ns v ar iou s po ultry f ee d m ill s, hatc he ri es , and pr oc es sin g pl an ts. F ie lda le ’ s pr oc es sin g op er at ion s e m an at e fr om abus ine ss paradigm known as “ contract farm ing.” Harold London worked as a broiler flock supervisor and broi ler m anager 1 for three differ ent com

panies from

1979 until 1 995. Christine London m anaged hen hou ses in the 197 0’ s and worked as a c hicken vaccinator for a poul try com pany in the 198 0’ s. I n 198 7, the L ondo ns purchased a nine acre f arm that contained on e chicken house for growing broilers (“ Gr een Mea dows No. 1”). In additio n to thi s one broiler hous e on their residence, the Londons leased two other3

farm s, the J. W . P ec k F ar

m , w hic h ha d on e poul tr

y hou se , and the Me rr itt

Mart in Farm (la te r kn own as “ Green Mea do ws No . 2”) , whi ch ha d t wo ch ic ke n h ou se s. A t the ti m e the L ondo ns p ur ch as ed the ir f ar m , Mar- Ja c Po ultry

Co m pany em plo y ed H ar old and a gr ee d to pla ce br oil er s onthe L ondo ns’ f ar m . I n 19 90, Fieldale offe red H arold a j ob as a broiler servicem an. Af ter H arold com

m enced his e m plo ym en t w ithF ie lda le , the L ondo ns s w itc he d th ei r gr ow er c ontra ct s f

ro m Mar- Ja c to F ie lda le . I n 19 95, F ie lda le te rm inate d H ar old ’ s e m plo ym en t. T he L ondo ns and F ie lda le e nte re d in to thr ee c ontra ct s th at gov er ne d th ei r gr ow er arr an ge m en t. T he c ontra ct s are sim ilar in c ont en t. E ac h c ontra ct is a separate a greem ent for the L ondo ns’ various farm s: (1) contract f or Gr een Me ad ow s N o. 1; (2 ) co ntr ac t f or G re enMe ad ow s N o. 2; an d ( 3) c ontra ct f or the J.W . P eck Far

m . The c ontracts are to run ind efinitely or until thi rty

day s after not ic e of te rm inatio n by

e ith er party . T he c ontra ct s a lso giv e Fi el da le the opt ion to term inate on onl y

seven day s notice when continui ng the contractual re la tio nshi p w oul d have de tr im en ta l e ff ec ts o n F ie lda le ’ s bu sin es s. Purs uant t o it s c ontra ct s w iththe L ondo ns, F ie lda le pr ovi de s th em w ith broilers, a s well a s the feed and m edication necessary for succe ssful growth. I n re tur n, the L ondo ns are r es pons ibl e fo r pr ovi din g c ar e an d ov er sig ht f or the br oil er s duri ng the f

ull te rm of the gr ow th c y cl e, w hic h no rm al ly la sts f or f orty to4

fo rty -n ine day s. T he L ondo ns’ r es pons ibi lity is vit al to the suc ce ss o f the bus ine ss an d e nc om

pa sse s avari ety

of dut ie s, suc h a s m ai nta ini ng a de qua te w at er and te m pe rat ur e fo r th e b ab y

ch ic ks an d “ cu ll in g” ou t b ird s t ha t ar e b eh in d i n g ro wth . A t the e nd o f the gr ow -o ut p er iod , F ie lda le c rate s th e br oil er s and s hip s th em to its pr oc es sin g pl an ts. A ft er

F ie lda le de liv er s th e br oil er s to the pr oc es sin g pl an ts, Fi el da le w ei ghs the bir ds, c rate s, and tru ck s onsc al es spe ci fi ca lly de sig ne d to de te rm ine the bir ds’ li ve w ei ght . Fi el da le pay s it s br oil er

gr ow er s ba se d up on a

c om ple x f orm ula , pr im ar ily takin g in to a cc ount

the w ei ght

of the bir ds u

pon the ir arr iva l a t the plant and the fe ed c onsum ed

by the bir ds d

ur ing the gr ow -o ut p er iod . F ie lda le c om pare s it s gr ow er s ba se d up on the c ost of pr oduc ing the f

ini she d br oil er s. T his c om pari son de te rm ine s th e re la tiv e pe rf orm an ce of

the gr ow er . F ie lda le de te rm ine s th e av erag e co st pe r po un d fo r al l o f th e b ird s p ro ces se d d ur in g a on e weekpe rio d. Fieldale then determ ines the cost per poun d for eac h grower whose birds wer e pr oc es se d duri ng tha t w ee k. F ie lda le de duc ts m one y f ro m the gr ow er ’ s c he ck

if his c ost is ab ove a ve ra ge , and a dds m one y ba ck to the gr ow er ’ s c he ck

if the c ost of pr oduc ing the br oil er s is be lowa ve ra ge . I n othe r w or ds, F ie lda le giv es tho se grower s who are m ost cost efficient a higher per- poun d rate than those grower s who cost Fieldale m ore m oney in food and m edicine.Chr is ti n e te s ti f ie d th at s h e un d e r s to o d

th e w o r d “ th e y” to me anF ie ld a le . [R . V o l. 7 p . 2 6 3 ]. 2 5 A s part of it s c ontra ct

ua l du ty to pr ovi de te ch nic al se rv ic e, F ie lda le a ssi gns flock superviso rs to visit th e growe r farm s on a wee kly basis to assis t the grower s w iththe m an ag em en t of

the br oil er s. F ie lda le ’ s f loc k su pe rv iso rs are r equir ed

to m aintain service reports on each grow er f arm . Fieldale also requires the f lock superviso rs to docum ent any problem s they

find on the grower f

arm s that en da ng er t he bro il ers ’ welf are. In 1997, Har old gave a deposi tion in a law suit agains t Fieldale. In that case, anA fr ic an -A m er ic anpr ospe ct ive c hic ke n gr ow er a lle ge d th at

F ie lda le de nie d hi m a contract to growchickens because of his race . Fieldale had never c ontracted
w ithan A fr ic an -A m er ic angr ow er . I n hi s de posi tio n, H ar old te sti fi ed that hi s s up er v i s o r, Do u g Ha t l ey, m ad e r ac i al l y d er o g at o ry co m m en t s . Af

t erHa ro l d ’s te sti m ony , the L ondo ns a lle ge that the y be gan to not ic e that the ir f loc k su pe rv iso r w as inc re as ing ly

c ri tic al of

the ir f ar m m an ag em en t. T he L ondo ns c ont en d th at in th e sp rin g o f 19 98 , th e fl oc k s up erv is orch eck edon th e Green Mea do ws No . 2 Farm and i nf orm ed Ch ri sti ne that i f the y

w er e not above a ve ra ge on the pr es en t fl oc k th en“ the y ” w oul d te rm inate the gr ow er c ontra ct . Whe n th e fl oc k c am e in 2 below aver age, Fieldale stopped deliv ering broilers to the farm . Later, another flock superviso r told the Londons that the rem aining two farm s would onlygetGumbo ro , o r i nf e c tio us burs a l di se a se , is a vir a l di se a se that atta c ks y oungbr oil e r c hic ke ns , 3 usually betwee n 18 and 26 day s of ag e. The disease attacks the immune sy stem, particula rly the B c e ll s , w h ic hp r o d

u c e an ti b o d ie s . [R . V o l. 6 p . 1 7 9
- 8 1 ]. 6 one m or e bunc h of

bir ds. T he L ondo ns a sse rt that the la st f

loc ks F ie lda le de liv er ed w er e inf ec te d w ithadis ea se kno w n a s gu m bor o. 3 B. P roc ed

ural H istory O n N ove m

be r 20, 200 1, the L ondo ns f ile d su it ag ai nst

F ie lda le a sse rt ing cl ai m s un de r the P SAf

or w ro ngf ul t er m inatio n of

the ir pou ltr y gr ow ing c ontra ct s, al le gin g th at

the te rm inatio n w as w ith out e co nom ic j ust if

ic at ionand i n r et al ia tio n fo r Haro ldLon do n’s t es ti m on y in a raci al di sc riminat io n l aws ui t ag ai ns t Fi el da le . T he L ondo ns a sse rt ed

aP SAm isw ei ghi ng c la im , a lle gin g th at F ie lda le f

ai le d to tr an spor t pr om ptl y the L ondo ns’ bir ds a ft er

loa din g and f

ai le d im m ed ia te ly to we igh th e birds upon arr ival at the processing pl ant. T he Londons also asserted state lawc la im s f

or br ea chof

c ontra ct and f ra ud. A ft er dis co ve ry , F ie lda le f

ile d a
m otion for sum

m ary j udgm ent. T he district court granted the m otion for sum m ary j udgm en t onthe L ondo ns’ c ont en tio n th at F ie lda le pr ovi de d th em

w ith subs tandard

c hic ks i n r et al ia tio n f

or H ar old ’ s te sti m ony

in the r ac e dis cr im inatio n law sui t; on the L ondo ns’ c la im that F ie lda le im

pr ope rl y f ai le d to m ak e fu el w ei ght ad j ustm en ts o n th e fl oc ks f

ro m the G re en

Me ad ow s F ar

m s; o n tw o othe r va gue w ei ghi ng c la im s; o n th e L ondo ns’ r et al ia tio n c la im ; and o n th e L ondo ns’ pr om pt7

w ei ghi ng and transpo rt at ionc la im . T he c as e pr oc ee de d to tr ia l w iththe f oll ow ing iss ue s pr es en te d to the j ur y : ( 1) w he the r Fi el da le vio la te d th e PS A in te rm inatin g the L ondo ns’ pou ltr

y gr ow ing c ontra ct s w ith out e co nom ic j ust if

ic at ion ; ( 2)
w he the r Fi el da le vio la te d th e PS A by f ai lin g to m ak e a fu el w ei ght a dj ustm en t on the f loc ks f ro m the J. W . P ec k F ar

m ; ( 3) w he the r Fi el da le vio la te d th e PS A by failing to m ake a w et bird adj ustm ent to the weight of the flocks; and (4) whether Fi el da le br ea ch ed

it s c ontra ct

w iththe L ondo ns o r de fr au de d th e L ondo ns b y se ndi ng the m

se ttl em en t do cum en ts c ont ai nin g in ac curate w ei ght s. A ft er the L ondo ns p re se nte d th ei r ca se , F ie lda le m ove d f or aj udgm en t a s a m atte r of lawon a ll cl ai m s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d th e m oti on o n th e L ondo ns’ state lawc la im s, on any

P SAw et bir d c la im

that aro se pr ior

to N ove m

be r 20, 1 9 9 7 , a n do n ea ch PS A f

u el ad ju s t m en tcl ai m

ex ce p tfo r t h o s e r el at ed t o th e J .W. Pe ck F ar m . T he dis tr ic t c ourt r es er ve d r uli ng o n th e te rm inatio n c la im . A t the close of the evidence, Fieldale r enewe d its m otion for j udgm ent as a m atter of law as to the post -N ovem

ber 20, 1997, w et birds claim s, the J. W . P eck Far m fuel ad j ustm en t c la im , and the P SAte rm inatio n c la im . T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e m oti on, a ga in r es er

vin g c onsi de ratio n of

the m oti on a s to the P SAte rm inatio n cl ai m . T he j ur

y r et ur ne d ave rd ic t i n f

av or of the L ondo ns o n th ei r te rm inatio n cl ai m and aw ar de d th em

$16 4, 000. 00. T he j ur

y a lso r et ur ne d ave rd ic t f

or the8

Londons o n the wet bird cla im , awarding them $225 .00, and on th e fuel adj ustm ent claim , awarding them $32.00. A fter tr ial, F ieldale filed a r enewe d
m otion for j udgm ent as a m atter of law and, in the alternative, a m otion for a new tr ia l. T he dis tr ic t c ourt e nte re d an or de r gr an tin g F ie lda le ’ s m oti on f or j udgm en t as am atte r of

lawon the L ondo ns’ te rm inatio n c la im , se tti ng a sid e $164 , 000. 00 o f the j udgm en t. T he L ondo ns t im el y appe al ed . ISSU ES 1. Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y gr an te d F ie lda le ’ s m oti on f or j udgm en t a s am atte r of

lawon the L ondo ns’ P SAte rm inatio n c la im be ca use the L ondo ns d id n ot s howthat the te rm inatio n ha d an a dve rs e ef fe ct on c om pe tit ion . 2. Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y gr an te d F ie lda le ’ s m oti on f or j udgm en t a s am atte r of

lawon the L ondo ns’ state lawc la im s f or br ea chof co ntr ac t and f

ra ud. 3. Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y gr an te d F ie lda le ’ s m oti on f or s u mmary j u d g me n to n th e L o n d o n s ’ P S A r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. 4. Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y gr an te d F ie lda le ’ s m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t onthe L ondo ns’ P SAim pr ope r w ei ghi ng c la im s. STA ND AR

DS OF RE VIEW9

T his c ourt r ev ie w s de novo th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s o rd erg ra n t i n g a p ar t y’ s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Ros sb ac h v . Cit

y o f Mi ami , 371 F . 3d 1354 , 135 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) . “ A j udgm en t a s am atte r of lawis w ar

rante d on ly

‘ [i ] f dur ing atr ia l by

j ur y aparty ha s be enf

ull y he ar d onan is sue and the re is no le ga lly suf fi ci en t e vid en tiary

ba sis f or ar ea sona

ble j ur y to fi nd f or that party

on that issu e. ’ ” U

. S. S. E
. C. v . G ins burg , 362 F . 3d 1 292, 129 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) (quot ing F ed . R. Ci v. P . 50( a) (1 )) . T his c ourt a lso r ev ie w s de novo the district court’ s order granting summ ary j udgm ent, a

pply ing th e sam e legal standards that go ve rn edth e d is tri ctco ur t’s d eci si on . In fo. Sy s. & Ne tw ork

s C orp. v . Ci tyof A tla nta , 281 F. 3d 12 20, 1224 (11t h Cir. 2002 ). DISC US SION A. Sta tutoryProv isi on A t i ssu e in this c as e is S ec tio n 20 2 of the P SAw hic h pr ovi de s th at : It sha ll be unl aw fu l f

or any pa ck er or sw ine c ontra ct or

w ithr es pe ct

to liv es toc k, m eats, m eat f

ood pr oduc ts, or

li ve sto ck pr oduc ts i n unm anuf ac tur ed f orm , or f or any li ve pou ltr

y de al er w ithr es pe ct

to liv e poul tr

y , to: ( a ) En g a g e i n o r

u s e an y u n f

a i r , u n ju s t l y d i s c r i mi n a t o ry, or de ce pti ve pr ac tic e or

de vic e; or (b) Make or give any

undu e or unreasonable pref erence or a dvanta ge to an y

part ic ular pe rs on o r loc al ity in an y re spe ct , or

sub j ec t any part ic ular pe rs on o r loc al ity to an y10 undu e or unr ea sona

ble pr ej udi ce or

dis advanta ge in an y re spe ct ; or (c) Sell or otherw ise transfer to or for any

other packer, sw ine c ontra ct or , or

any li ve pou ltr

y de al er , or

buy or oth er w ise r ec ei ve f

ro m or f or any oth er pa ck er , sw ine co ntr ac tor , or

any li ve pou ltr

y de al er , any

art ic le f or the pur pose or w iththe e ff

ec t of appor tio nin g th e supp ly be tw ee n any

suc h pe rs ons, if

suc h a ppor tio nm en t ha s th e te nde nc y or e ff ec t of r es tr ai nin g c om

m er ce or of c re at ing a m onop oly ; or (d ) Se ll or

oth er w ise tr an sf

er to or f or any oth er pe rs on, or buy or oth er w ise r ec ei ve f

ro m or f or any oth er pe rs on, an y art ic le f or the pur pose or w iththe e ff

ec t of m an ipu la tin g or

c ontro lli ng p ri ce s, or

of c re at ing a m onop oly

in the a cquis iti on o f, buy ing , se lli ng, or de al ing in, any

art ic le , or

of r es tr ai nin g c om

m er ce ; or (e ) E nga ge in an y

c our se of bus ine ss o r do any

a ct f or the pur pose or w iththe e ff

ec t of m an ipu la tin g or

c ontro lli ng prices, or of cr eating a m onop oly in the acquisitio n of, buy ing , se lli ng, or

de al ing in, any

art ic le , or

of re str ai nin g c om

m er ce ; or (f) Conspire, com

bine, agre e, or arr ange with any other pe rs on ( 1) to ap portio n te rr ito ry f or c ar ry ing on b usi ne ss, or ( 2) to ap portio n purc ha se s or sa le s of any art ic le , or (3 ) to m an ipu la te or

c ontro l pr ic es ; or (g) Conspire, com

bine, agre e, or arr ange with any other pe rs on t o do , or

a id o r ab et

the doi ng o f, any

a ct m ad e unl aw fu l by

sub div isi ons (a ), ( b) , ( c) , ( d) , or ( e) of thi s se ct ion . 7 U. S. C. § 192 (2004).There is no question that Fielda le is a “poultry deale r” under the P S A. A “ l i v e poult ry 4 deale r” is “a

ny person en gage d i n t h e business of obtaininglive poultry by purcha se or unde r a poultry g rowingarr angeme nt for the pur pose of e ither slaug hteringit or selling it for sla ug hter by another .” 7 U.S.C. § 182(10). 11 T he P SAw as e na ct ed

in 1921 “ to c om

pr eh en siv el y

r eg ulate pa ck er s, stocky ards, m arketing agents and dealers.” H ay s L iv es toc k Co m m ’n Co
. v . M aly Li vesto ck Co m m ’n Co
. , 498 F . 2d 9 25, 927 ( 10th C ir . 197 4) . A t the ti m e Co ngr es s en ac te d th e PS A , “ [t ] he c hie f ev il fe ar ed [ w as ] the m onop oly

of the pa ck er s, en ab lin g th em

und uly and arb itr ar ily

to low er pr ic es to the shi ppe r, w ho s el ls, and undu ly and arbitrar ily

to increase the price to the consum er, who buy s.” Sta ffo rd
v. W allace , 258 U . S. 495 , 514 -1 5, 42 S . Ct . 397 , 401 ( 1922 ). “ Se ct ion202 of the original Act m ade it unlawful for any ‘ packer’ to engage in any anticom petitive,
m onop olisti c, discrim inatory , or deceptive practices. ” U nit ed Sta tes v . P erdue Farm s, I nc. , 680 F . 2d 2 77, 281 ( 2nd Ci r. 198 2) . I n 19 35, Co ngr es s am en de d th e PSAto includ e “ live pou ltry dealers and hand lers, ” se e id. at 280-82, and later inc lud ed sw ine c ontra ct or s. T he P SAauth or iz es the S ec re tary of A gr ic ult ur e to en joi n v io la ti on s o f Sec ti on 20 2( a) b y pa ck ers an d s win e co nt ract or s. See 7 U . S. C. § 19 3. T he P SAdoe s no t, how ev er , auth or iz e the S ec re tary to en j oin vio la tio ns b y

li ve pou ltr

y de al er s. Se e id. Per sons injure d as a re sult of a

4 vio la tio n by

ali ve pou ltr

y de al er m ay br ing an a ct ionin fe de ra l di str ic t c ourt t o12

recover “ the full am ount of dam ages sustained in consequence of such viol ation.” 7 U. S. C. § 209 (a). B. Issues 1. S ec tio n 20 2( a) r equir es an anti -c om pe tit ive e ff

ec t. Th e L o n d o n s co n t en dth at th e d i s t ri ct co u rt erre di n g ra n t i n g Fi el d al e’s
m oti on f or j udgm en t a s am atte r of

lawon t he ir P SAte rm inatio n c la im

be ca use Fi el da le te rm inate d th ei r gr ow er c ontra ct s w ith out

suf fi ci en t e co nom ic j ust if ic at ionin vio la tio n of

7 U . S. C. § § 192( a) and ( b) . S ec tio n 19 2( a) pr ohi bit s pa ck er s f ro m e nga gin g inor

usi ng any

“unf ai r, unj ust ly

dis cr im inator

y , or deceptive practice or device. ” 7 U .S .C. § 192(a). Section 192(b) prohib its packers fr om sub j ec tin g “ an y

part ic ular pe rs on o r loc al ity to an y und ue or unr ea sona

ble pr ej udi ce or

dis advanta ge in an y

r es pe ct . ” 7 U . S. C. § 19 2( b) . T he statut e doe s no t define w hat constitu tes an “ unfair, unjustly discrim inatory , or deceptive practice. ” T he L ondo ns and am ic us United State s Depar tm ent of Agric ulture (“ DO A” ) co nte nd tha t the pla in l an gua ge of the statut e, the pur

pose of the P SA , and the DO A’ s interpretation all indicate that in order to prove that anypractice is “ unfair” unde r § 20 2( a) , it

is not ne ce ssary

to pr ove pr ed at or

y int en t, c om

pe tit ive inj ur

y , or lik el iho od o f inj ur

y . F ie lda le and am ic us National Chicken Cou ncil counter that the district court properly determ ined that plain tiffs m ust sh ow that the unfair,13

dis cr im inator

y or de ce pti ve pr ac tic e adve rs el y a ff ec te d c om

pe tit ionin or de r to pr ev ai l un de r the P SA . T his is aniss ue of f ir st i m pr es sio n f or our c ir cu it.

“ A s ina ll ca se s of

statut or y c onstru ct ion , our

ta sk i s to int er

pr et the w or ds of the[] statute[] in ligh t of the purposes Con gress soug ht to serve.” No rfo lk R ed ev elopm en t & H

ousi ng A uth
. v . Ch es ape ak e & P oto m ac T

el
. Co
. , 464 U . S. 30, 36, 104 S . Ct . 304 , 307 ( 1983 ) (quot at ionand c itatio n om itt ed ); see also United States v. G onza lez , 6 7 1 F. 2 d4 4 1 , 4 4 3 (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 8 2 ) ( n o t i n g th at “ t h i s co u rt ’s ta skis to co ns tru e th e st atut e in li gh t o f th e p ur po se s C on gr es s s ou gh t t o s erv e”). A lon g th ose li ne s, c ourts h av e co nstru ed the P SA“ ag ai nst

the ba ck dr op o f corruption th e A ct w as intended to prevent.” Phi ls on v. Co ld Cr eek Fa rms , 947 F. Supp. 197, 200 (E. D. N. C. 1996 ). T he prim ary purpose of the PSAwa s “ to assure fa ir c om pe tit ionand f

ai r tr ad e pr ac tic es in liv es toc k m ar ke tin g and i n th e m eatpacking indu stry .” H .R. Rep. No. 85-1048 at p.1 ( 1958 ) re pri nte d in 195 8 U . S. C. C. A . N . 521 2, 521 3. A t the ti m e of e na ctm en t, the c hie f ev il Co ngr es s fear edwas t he m on op ol y of t he pa ck ers . Sta

ffo rd , 258 U. S. at 514-15, 42 S. C t. at 401. T he A ct

“ w as a im ed

a t ha lti ng ‘ a ge ne ra l c our se of a ct ionf or the pur pose of destroy ing com

petition .’ ” Arm our & Co. v . U nited Sta tes , 402 F . 2d 7 12, 720 ( 7th Ci r. 19 68 ) (q uo ti ng Hou se Rep or t No . 12 97 , 66 th Co ng . 3dSes s. (1 92 1) , p. 1 1) . Rely ing up on the PSA’ s antitrust ancestry , sever al courts have held thatThe L ondons and the Gove rnment re ly on W ilson for their

contention that Section 202(a ) 5 does not require an adve rse e ffe ct on competition. Howeve r, as the district c ourt noted, W ilson did not abdicate the nee d for a competitive injury . The Armour court he ld that “the W

ilson cas e d o es not support the . . . view that neither intent nor some kind of competitive injury is nece ssary

for the operation of Section 202(a) .” Armour , 402 F.2d at 718. 14 onl y tho se unf

ai r, dis cr im inator

y or de ce pti ve pr ac tic es a dve rs el y a ff ec tin g co m pe ti ti on are p ro hi bi te d b y th e PSA. See F

arro w v. De

p’t of Agric. , 760 F . 2d 211, 214 ( 8thCi r. 198 5) ; P ac ifi c Tradi ng C o. v . W ils on &Co
. , 547 F . 2d 3 67, 369
- 70 ( 7thCi r. 197 6) ; A rm our & Co
. , 402 F . 2d at 72 2- 23; G rif fin v . Sm ith

fie ld F oods , Inc. , 183 F . S upp. 2d 8 24, 827 ( E . D . V a. 200 2) ; Co ld C re ek F arm , 947 F. Supp. at 200; se e als o Phil

son v. G old

sbor o M ill ing Co
. , 164 F . 3d 6 25, N o. 96- 2542 , 96- 2631 , 1998 W L 709324, at *4 (4th Cir. Oc t. 5, 1998 ) (f indin g that the dist rict co urt di d no t e rr

in ins tr uc tin g th e j ur

y that the pla int if

fs w er e re qui re d to pr ove that the de fe ndants ’ c ondu ct w as li ke ly

to adve rs el y

a ff ec t c om pe tit ionin or de r to pr ev ai l onthe ir

c la im s un de r the P SAand n oti ng tha t the pla int if f m ust e sta bli sh that the c ha lle nge d a ct

is lik el yto produce the ty

pe of injur

y that the Act wa s de si gn edto pre ve nt ). But see Spencer Livestock Com m’ n Co. v. De p’t of Agric. , 841 F. 2d 1 451, 145 4- 55 ( 9thCi r. 198 8) ; W ils on &Co
. v . B en son , 286 F . 2d 8 91, 895-96 (7th Cir. 1961 ). W e j oin th ose circuits that hold that in order to succeed 5 on a claim

under the PSA , a

plaintiff m

ust sh ow that the defe ndant’s unfair,15

dis cr im inator

y or de ce pti ve pr ac tic e adve rs el y a ff ec ts o r is l ike ly

to adve rs el y affe ctco m

pe ti ti on . The A rm our

de ci sio n is ins tr

uc tiv e on this iss ue . I n A rm our , the S ev en th Ci rcu it co ns id ered th e le gi sl at iv e h is to ry of t he PSA an d n ot edit s an ti tru st roo ts . T he c ourt i nf

er re d th at the P SAm igh t be br oa de r than ante ce de nt anti tr ust le gis la tio n, but

f ound that “ the re [ w as ] no s how ing that the re w as any int en t t o giv e the S ec re tary

of A gr ic ult ur e co m ple te and unbr idl ed

dis cr et ionto re gul at e the ope ratio ns o f pa ck er s. ” 402 F . 2d at 72 2. T he c ourt r ea sone d: Se ct ion202 (a ) shou ld b e re ad li be ra lly e noug h to take c ar e of

the ty pe s of anti -c om pe tit ive pr ac tic es pr ope rl y de em ed ‘ unf ai r’ by the Fe de ra l T ra de Co m

m iss ion( 15 U . S. C. § 45 ) an d a lso to re ac h any of the special m ischiefs and injuries inherent in livestock and p oultry tr af fi c. H ow ev er , in Se ct ion202 (a ) Co ngr es s gave the S ec re tary no m an da te to ign or e the ge ne ra l ou tli ne of lon g- tim e an titru st p oli cy by co nde m nin g pr ac tic es w hic h are ne ith er de ce pti ve nor

inj ur iou s to co m pe tit ionnor

int en de d to be so b y

the party c harg ed . Id
. Recognizing that Section 20 2(a) “ authorize[s] the Sec retar y of A griculture to r eg ulate anti co m

pe tit ive tr ad e pr ac tic es in the li ve sto ck and m eat i ndus tr

y , ” the Eighth Circuit held that “ [a] practice is ‘ unfair’ . . . if it inj ures or is likely to injure com petition .” F

arr ow , 760 F . 2d at 21 4. S im ilarl y , the N inth C ir cu it ha s he ld tha t, at the ve ry le as t, S ec tio n 20 2( a) r equir es “ a re as ona ble li ke lih ood that . . . the16

result [of a pr actice] will be an und ue restra int of com petition .” D e Jo ng Pac ki ng Co. v . U nited Sta tes De

p’t of Agric. , 618 F . 2d 1 329, 133 7 ( 9thCi r. 198 0) . T he Fourth Circuit likewise has held that a Se ction 20 2(a) plaintiff m ust establis h at least “ the likeliho od that an arrangem ent will re sult in com petitive injury .” Phil son v. G old

sbor o M ill ing Co
. , 1998 W L 709324, at *4 (quotatio n om itted). Policy considerations also weigh in our decision-m aking. W e note that elim ination of a c om

petitive im

pact requirem ent would subv ert the policy j ustifications for the P SA ’ s adoptio n. A s the A rm our c ourt no te d, the m ai n Congression al m otivatio n for the PS A’ s passage was the nee d for “ specialized regulation of the m any -tiered pac king indus try , w ith its u niqu e problem s.” A rm our , 402 F . 2d at 72 1. T hus, Co ngr es s se le ct ed the S ec re tary

a s ov er se er , but es ta bli she d so m e re str ic tio ns w ithr eg ar d to the S ec re tary ’ s auth or ity . “ Co ngr es s ga ve the S ec re tary

no m an da te to ign or e the ge ne ra l ou tli ne of lon g- tim e an titru st pol ic y by c onde m nin g pr ac tic es w hic h are ne ith er de ce pti ve nor

inj ur iou s to com petition nor intended to be so by the party charged. ” Id

. a t 72 2. E lim inatin g the com petitive im

pact requirem ent would igno re the long-tim e antitrust poli cies which form ed the backbone of the PSA ’ s creation. Failure to r equire a co m pe tit ive im

pa ct sho w ing w oul d su

bj ec t de al er s to li ab ili ty

und er the P SAf

orChevron U.S.A. v . Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778 (1984). 6 17 sim ple breach of c ontract or for j ustifiablyterm inating a contrac t with a grow er who ha s fa il edto pe rfo rm as p ro m is ed . Moreover, we do not give Ch ev ron d ef er en ce t o th e S ec re t ary’ s 6 int er pr et at ionof

S ec tio n 20 2( a) . T his c ourt gi ve s Ch ev ron defer ence to agency in te rp ret at io ns of r eg ul at io ns pro m ul ga te d p ur su an t t o c on gr es si on al au th or it y . NLRB v . U

nit ed F ood and Co m m er ci al W

ork er s U nio n , 484 U. S. 112, 123, 108 S. Ct . 413 , 421 ( 1987 ). T he P SAdoe s no t de le ga te auth or ity to the S ec re tary

to ad jud ic at e al le ge d v io la ti on s o f Sec ti on 20 2 b y li ve po ul try deal ers . See 7 U. S. C. § 1 93 (a). Co ng res s l eftth attas k e xc lu si ve ly to t he fed eral co ur ts . See Jackson v. Swift Eck rich, Inc. , 53 F. 3d 14 52, 1456-57 (8th Cir. 1995 ). T he absence of such de le ga tio n c om

pe ls c ourts t o a ff

or d no Ch ev ron d ef

er en ce t o th e S ec re t ary’ s co ns tru ct io n o f Sec ti on 20 2( a). Se e, e . g. , U nit ed Sta tes v . M

ea d C orp. , 533 U. S. 218, 226 -2 7, 121 S . Ct . 216 4, 217 1 ( 2001 ) (s ta tin g th at “ adm ini str at ive im plem entation of a particular statutory provisio n qualifies for Ch ev ron defer ence w he n it appe ar s th at

Co ngr es s de le ga te d auth or ity to the a ge nc y

ge ne ra lly to m ak e ru le s c ar ry ing the f

or ce of law , and tha t the a ge nc y int er pr et at ionc la im ing de fe re nc e w as pr om

ulg at ed in the e xe rc ise of

that auth or ity ”) . B ec au se Co ngr es s pla inl y int en de d to pr ohi bit

“ onl y tho se unf

ai r, dis cr im inator

y or de ce pti veWe note that the Gover nment contends that the Secre tary “has consistently interpre ted the 7 [P SA] to prohibit all unfair pra ctices, r eg ardle ss o f wh et h er those prac tices ca use a c ompetitive injury .” Gov’ t. Brie f p. 10. In support of this “consistent view,” th e Go v er n ment relies on one a g e nc y de c isi on : In re Ozark

County Cattl e Co. , 49 Ag ric. De c. 336 (1990) . We do not consider one ag ency decision to establish a “ consistent view;” rathe r, this one ag ency decision only supports the Gover nment’s litigatingposition. We d e c lin e to a do pt a dis jun c tiv e te st f

or pr ov ingSe c tio n 2 02 (a ) v iol atio ns : 8 anti c omp e tit ive inj ur

y or pr e dator y int e nt. We d e c lin e su c h a te st b e c a us e the L on do ns faile d to prese rve the question of pre datory intent f or appellate revie w. They did not arg ue in the district court that their ca se wa s a spec ial circ umstances c ase fro m wh ich pre datory intent could be infe rre d. Be cause the questi on of predatory intent was not prese rved for appeal, we deem it to be aba ndoned. See R ogero v. B.M. Noone , 7 0 4 F. 2 d 5 1 8 , 5 2 0 n . 1 (1 1 thC i r. 1 9 8 3 ). Ho we v er , as s um i n g arguendo that w e did

a do pt a dis jun c tiv e te st f

or pr ov ing Se c tio n 20 2( a ) vio latio ns , the L on do ns sti ll w ou ld not preva il in thi s case . At trial, they did not present any

evidenc e of Fielda le’s alleg ed pre datory int e nt i n te rm inatin gthe g ro we r c ontr a c ts. 18 practices a dversely

aff ecting com

petition ,” se e Phil

son , 94 7 F . Sup p. at 20 0, a co nt rary int erp ret at io n o f Sec ti on 20 2( a) d es erv es no de fere nc e. See H ei m m erm ann v. F

irs t U nio n M ort gage Co rp. , 305 F. 3d 12 57, 1261 (11t h Cir. 2002 ) (“ N o de fe re nc e is t o be giv ento ana ge nc y int er pr et at ionthat i s a t od ds w ith th e p la in m ean in g o f th e st atut e b ei ng in te rp ret ed .”), cert. denied , 539 U . S. 970 , 123 S. Ct. 2641 (2003). 7 In conclusion , w e hold that in order to prevail under the PS A, a plaintiff
m ust sho wthat the de fe ndant’ s de ce pti ve or unf ai r pr ac tic e adve rs el y

a ff ec ts com petition or is likely

to adversely

aff ect com petition . T herefor e, the district

8
co urt pr ope rl y

gr an te d F ie lda le ’ s m oti on f or j udgm en t a s am atte r of

lawon the L ondo ns’ P SAte rm inatio n c la im be ca use the L ondo ns d id n ot p re se nt anyTh e L on do ns b a s e d the ir c la im o n th e ir

c onte nti on

that F ie lda le wr on g fu lly

te rm inate d th e ir 9 contra ct bec ause H arold testified in a rac e discrimination cas e aga inst Fieldale. F rom this, the L ondons asserte d that the jury could infer

an anticompe titive effe ct; i.e., the g ro we rs would not c omp la in a

bo ut a ny a dv e rs e F ie lda le bu sin e ss pr a c tic e fo r fe ar that Fie lda le wo uld te rm inate the ir contra cts. For

the re asons stated in our opinion, the district cour t properly

g rante d summary jud g me nt o n th e L on do ns ’ r e ta liatio n c la im. Th e y did no t pr e se nt a

ny e vi den ce th at F ie lda le re ta liate d ag a ins t the m af

te r Ha ro ld te sti fi e d in the dis c ri min atio n la ws uit . B e c a

us e the L on do ns did not p re s ent any

evidenc e to support their c laim of reta liation, the jury could not infer that such a dece ptive, unfair pr actice (termination of c ontr ac t s i n reta liation for Har old’s testimony) had a n anticompetitive ef

fec t. 19 ev ide nc e at

tr ia l tha t F ie lda le ’ s te rm inatio n of the ir gr ow er c ontra ct s a dve rs el y af fe ct ed or w as li ke ly

to adve rs el y

a ff ec t c om pe tit ion . T he L ondo ns d id n ot pr es en t any

e vid en ce a s to the tot al num be r of c hic ke n gr ow er s or

buy er s inthe north G eo rg iaare a. T he L ondo ns d id n ot p re se nt any e vid en ce r eg ar din g th e pe rc en ta ge of

the c hic ke n m ar

ke t F ie lda le c ontro lle d. F urthe rm or e, the L ondo ns did not pr es en t any

e vid en ce of

the ir or F ie lda le ’ s r el at ive statur e w ith in the ch ic ke n in dustry . A cc or din gly , w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g Fieldale’ s m otion for j udgm ent as a m atter of law on the L ondo ns’ PSA t e rmi n a t i o n c l a i m. 9 2. Jud gm en t a s aMatte r of L aww as pr ope r on s ta te lawc la im s. T he L ondo ns c la im ed

that F ie lda le br ea ch ed

the br oil er

c ontra ct s by pr ovi din g po or

qua lity and s ic k bi rd s, f

ai lin g to w ei gh the c hic ke ns a cc ur at el y , and fa ili ng t o pr ovi de suf

fi ci en t m ed ic at ionand v ac ci na tio ns f or the f loc ks. T he Londons d id not suppo rt their claim with any ref erence to a specific c ontract20

provisi on that th ey

allege Fie ldale breached. A t the close of the L ondo ns’ case, the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d F ie lda le ’ s m oti on f or j udgm en t a s am atte r of

lawon the breach of c ontract claim . The district court did not err in so ruling. T he broiler co ntr ac ts o nly

obl igate d F ie lda le to pr ovi de to the gr ow er the “ ne ce ssary

f ee d, va cc ine s, m ed ic at ion s, and b oot w as h su ppl ie s” f or r ai sin g th e bir ds t o pr oc es sin g ag e. [ Pl ai nti ff

’ s E x. 36] . C ontrary

to the L ondo ns’ a sse rt ion , F ie lda le did not ha ve aspe ci fi c co ntr ac tua l du ty to va cc inate the bir ds f

or gum bor o pr ior

to de liv er y . I n su m , a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt f ound , the L ondo ns d id n ot p re se nt any ev i d en ce t o s up p o rt th ei r b re ac h o f c o n t ra ct cl ai m . [ R. Vo l . 8 p . 4 6 8 ]. T he L ondo ns a lle ge d th at F ie lda le sup pli ed

the m w ithse ttl em en t st at em en ts that F ie lda le kne wto be f al se , and the y

r el ie d ontho se state m en ts i n a cc ep tin g th e sum s F ie lda le pa id f

or the br oil er s. T he L ondo ns c la im ed the y w er e da m ag ed

a s a re sul t of the ir r el ianc e on the se f

al se se ttl em en t st at em en ts. A t the c los e of the L ondo ns’ c as e, the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d F ie lda le ’ s m oti on f or j udgm en t a s a m atter of law on the L ondo ns’ fra ud claim . The district court cor rectly found that the re w as no e vid en ce of an a ff irm at ive a ct

or inj ur y to supp ort the L ondo ns’ f ra ud cl ai m . F urthe rm or e, the L ondo ns p ro ff er ed no e vid en ce f

ro m w hic h aj ur

y c oul d cal cu la te an y

all eg edlo ss wit h re as on ab le cert ai nt y . Se e B rook s v . D im e Sav ing B ank of Ne w Yo rk , 457 S . E . 2d 7 06, 708 ( G a. Ct . App. 199 5) ( statin g th at a21

pla int if f m ust sho wthat he ha s be endam ag ed and h e m ust “ es ta bli sh the a m ount of [his] dam ages by

providin g the factfinder w ith evidence from which it can calculate the am ount of loss with reasonable cer tainty ”). A ccordingly , the district co urt pr ope rl y

gr an te d F ie lda le ’ s m oti on f or j udgm en t a s am atte r of

lawon the L ondo ns’ state lawbr ea chof c ontra ct and f ra ud c la im s. 3 . S u mmary J u d g me n tw a s p r o p e r o n P S A r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. Th e L o n d o n s ar g u e t h at th e d i s t ri ct co u rt i m p ro p er l y g ra n t ed Fi el d al e’s
m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t onthe ir

P SAr et al ia tio n c la im . T he L ondo ns contend th at they

presented sufficient evidence fr om which a j ury

could infer that be ca use of H ar old ’ s a dve rs e te sti m ony in the r ac ia l di sc ri m inatio n c as e, F ie lda le re ta liate d a ga ins t the L ondo ns b y te rm inatin g th ei r gr ow er c ontra ct s. T he Londons claim

that they presented evidence that their flock perf orm ance w as average pr ior to Har old’s testim ony ; that after his testim ony , their flock supe rv iso rs be cam e inc re as ing ly c ri tic al on the ir

se rv ic e re ports; that the L ondo ns’ ch ic k qu al ity

de cl ine d and F ie lda le de liv er ed sic k bi rd s; and tha t the L ondo ns w er e not F ie lda le ’ s w or se pe rf

orm ing gr ow er s w he n F ie lda le te rm inate d th ei r co ntr ac ts. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in gr an tin g su m

m ar y j udgm en t onthe L ondo ns’ P SAr et al ia tio n c la im . T he L ondo ns f ai le d to pr ovi de any

e vid en ce of22

ca usa tio n: tha t F ie lda le te rm inate d th ei r co ntr ac ts be ca use of H ar old ’ s te sti m ony

in the r ac ia l di sc ri m inatio n. F ir st, the e vid en ce sho w s th at f or the f loc ks whe re the ag es of the sup ply ing he ns are a va ila ble , a ll of the L ondo ns’ c hic ks c am e fr om he ns b etw ee n 26 and 6 6 w ee ks o ld, w hic h is w ith in i ndus tr y a ge standard s. T hus, the Londons h ad no evidence to sup port their assertion that Fieldale wa s pur pose fu lly sup ply ing the m

w ithsub standard

c hic ks. Mo re ove r, the L ondo ns fa ile d to sho wthat the y

w er e sin gle d ou t t o r ec ei ve poo r ch ic ks a s af orm of ret al ia ti on . Se e Phil

son , 947 F . S upp. a t 20 1- 02 ( not ing that pr ovi din g lo wqua lity b i r d s c a n v i o l a t e th e P S A w h e n i ti s d o n e f o r an i l l e g a l r e a s o n , b u t

r e qu i r i n g s o me pr oof that the il le ga l r ea son w as the m oti va tio n be hin d th e de ci sio n to sup ply the subs tandard birds). Second, the e vidence shows that the London s’ production declined sig nif ic an tly in 1997 and 1 998. O f the ir 35 f loc ks i n th at

ti m e pe ri od, onl y

nin e w e r e ab o v e a v e r a g e . T h u s , th e L o n d o n s ’ b e l o wa v e r a g e f l o c k s du r i n g th a tt i me fr am e supp ort F ie lda le ’ s a sse rt ionthat i t t er m inate d th e co ntr ac t w iththe L ondo ns due to sub- standard

pe rf orm an ce . I n su m , the L ondo ns d id n ot p re se nt any ev ide nc e show ing ac au sa l c onne ct ionbe tw ee n th e co ntr ac t t er m inatio n and H ar old L ondo n’ s te sti m ony . H en ce , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in gr an tin g F i e l d a l e ’s mo t i o n f

o r s u mmary j u d g me n to n th e L o n d o n s ’ P S A r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m.23

4. S um m ar y Jud gm en t w as pr ope r on P SAm isw ei ghi ng c la im s. The L ondo ns argue that the district court erred in granting summ ary j udgm en t t o F ie lda le on the ir m isw ei ghi ng c la im s f

or the los s of

f ue l w ei ght

in transit of the birds from

their G reen Me adows N o. 1 Farm and their Gr een Meadows N o. 2 Farm . The tw o contracts that cover these farm s both provided that the weighing procedure would not in clude any adj ustm ent for vehicle fuel use d duri ng transpo rt at ion . T he L ondo ns d o no t pr ovi de any c as e lawto ind ic at e that tw o c ontra ct ing part ie s w oul d vi olate the P SAby ins er tin g apr ovi sio n reg ard in g wh et he r fu el us ag e wou ldbe co ns id ered du rin g t he weig hi ng pro ces s. In ste ad , the y

r el y on a r eg ulatio n pr om

ulg at ed by the G ra in, I nspe ct ion , and Packer s and Stocky ards Adm inistration , pursuant to the PSA , that r equires that po ul try gro wers be pa idba se d o n t he actua l wei gh t o f th e li ve po ul try. See 9 C. F. R. § 20 1. 55. Co ngr es s pa sse d th e PS A to pr ote ct f ar m er s and g ro w er s, but

Co ngr es s di d not int en d f or the P SAto supp lant the “ tr ad iti ona l pr inc ipl es of f re ed om of contract. ” Ja ck

son , 53 F. 3d at 145 8. T he Londons presented no evidence that the y did not e nte r int o th es e co ntr ac t vo lun tari ly , and thr ough out m ost of the ir gr ow ing r el at ion shi p w ithF ie lda le , the L ondo ns n ev er c om pla ine d a bout the
w ei ghi ng o f the bir ds. Mo re ove r, w e fi nd the L ondo ns’ r el ianc e on the r eg ulatio n24

to be unavailin g because that section not es that any adj ustm ent to the actual we ight sh all be explained on anystatem ents. Fie ldale did just that: it inserted co ntr ac tua l pr ovi sio ns i n th ei r gr ow er c ontra ct s in fo rm ing the L ondo ns tha t no fuel adj ustm ent would be m ade at w eigh-in. A ccordingly , the district court pr ope rl y gr an te d su m

m ar y j udgm en t t o F ie lda le on the L ondo ns’ f ue l a dj ustm en t cl ai m s o n t he ir g ro wer co nt ract s fo r th e Green Mea do ws Fa rm s. CON CLU SION Inde ci din g th e que sti on whe the r Se ct ion202 (a ) of the P SAr equir es a s h o w i n g o f

an t i
- c o mp e t i t i v e e f

f e c t , we ar e g u i d e db y th e P S A ’s an t i t r u s tan c e s t ry, ca se law , and p oli cy

c onsi de ratio ns i n ho ldi ng tha t i n or de r to p re va il unde r the PS A , apla int if

f m ust sho wthat the de fe ndant’ s “ unf ai r, unj ust ly

dis cr im inator

y , or de ce pti ve pr ac tic es ” ei the r ha d an a dve rs e ec onom ic im pa ct or w er e lik el y

to pr oduc e ana dve rs e ec onom ic im pa ct . T o ho ld o the rw ise w oul d su bve rt the pur pose of the P SA . A cc or din gly , w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g j udgm en t a s am atte r of

lawon the L ondo ns’ P SAte rm inatio n c la im . W e al so af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de rs gr an tin g j udgm en t a s am atte r of lawto Fi el da le on the L ondo ns’ state lawc la im s, and g ranti ng s um m ar y j udgm en t t o F ie lda le on the L ondo ns’ P SAr et al ia tio n and m isw ei ghi ng c la im s. AF FIRMED .25