Opinion ID: 482453
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Granting of Fourth Motion: Final Summary Judgment

Text: 45 The only substantive antitrust issue that remained before the district court after the flurry of activity described above was Gatlinburg's monopolization claim. As noted above, this court had reversed the district court's dismissal of that claim, finding that despite our extreme skepticism about the substantive validity of the claim, the statute of limitations grounds articulated by the district court was not a proper grounds for dismissal. National Souvenir Center, supra, 728 F.2d at 513-14. Appellees subsequently moved for summary judgment on this claim, this time contending that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The district court ultimately granted this motion and dismissed the case, Memorandum, Aug. 13, 1985, and Gatlinburg appeals. 46 We turn first to a procedural argument raised by Gatlinburg. Gatlinburg asserts that, because the district court had denied appellees' first motion for summary judgment, it was precluded from granting summary judgment at a later stage under the doctrine of res judicata. This argument is without merit. A subsequent motion for summary judgment based on an expanded record is always permissible. Brownfield v. Landon, 307 F.2d 389 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 924, 83 S.Ct. 291, 9 L.Ed.2d 232 (1962). In this case, substantial discovery took place after the denial of appellees' first motion for summary judgment. This discovery enlarged the record. In particular, it added one piece of evidence that was highly material to the antitrust issues presented, and upon which appellees partially relied in their final motion for summary judgment. 47 At the time of appellees' first motion, the record contained statements made by Shelby Boyd, the founder of the Gatlinburg museum, to the effect that appellees were the only source of display figures for wax museums when he was establishing the museum. This statement buttressed Gatlinburg's claim that appellees possessed monopoly power. However, in a deposition taken during discovery after the denial of the first motion for summary judgment, Boyd refuted his earlier statements. In his new testimony, Boyd admitted that he had found a second source for museum figures, but that the second source could not deliver figures for about a year, whereas Lynch could deliver immediately. He stated that, because he had already rented a building to house his planned museum, he chose Lynch as his supplier so that he could begin operations as soon as possible. This later deposition testimony by Boyd, which went to the very heart of Gatlinburg's monopolization claims, sufficiently added to the record to justify the district court's consideration of the later motion. 48 We turn at last to the final issue presented: whether the district court properly dismissed the case on the final motion for summary judgment. Gatlinburg's monopolization claims contained charges that appellees violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The Section 2 portion essentially entailed charges that appellees had monopoly power in the wax figure market and that they unlawfully exercised that power to force Gatlinburg to lease Lynch figures and pay exorbitant prices. We read the district court's opinion as premising dismissal of this Section 2 claim on two separate grounds: its conclusion that appellees did not have monopoly power in the relevant market; and its conclusion that even if appellees did have monopoly power, Gatlinburg did not demonstrate that appellees' actions constituted a violation of the antitrust laws. We agree with the district court's holding on both counts. 49 The Supreme Court has defined monopoly power as the power to control prices or exclude competition. United States v. duPont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 391, 76 S.Ct. 994, 1005, 100 L.Ed. 1264 (1956). Boyd's uncontroverted statement that he had found another supplier of wax figures thus seriously undermined Gatlinburg's claim that appellees had monopoly power. Gatlinburg's response is that because Boyd said that the second supplier could not deliver figures for a year, appellees still had a monopoly, albeit one that was limited in time. However, Gatlinburg offers absolutely no authority for the proposition that a seller who can deliver a product sooner than a known competitor is a monopolist under the antitrust laws for the period in which he alone is able to deliver. The principal case relied on by Gatlinburg to support its time-limited monopoly theory, William Goldman Theatres, Inc. v. Loews, Inc., 150 F.2d 738 (3d Cir.1945), makes no mention at all of the time-limited rationale. Furthermore, that case is completely inapposite because it involved a single known supplier, whereas in the instant case there were two known suppliers. Therefore, we agree with the district court's conclusion that Gatlinburg has not shown that appellees had monopoly power in the wax figure market. 50 Even if we assumed arguendo that appellees did have monopoly power, summary judgment was proper under the circumstances presented in this case. A plaintiff must show more than monopoly power in order to establish a Section 2 violation; he must also show that the defendant exercised its power in an anticompetitive fashion. United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71, 86 S.Ct. 1698, 1703-04, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966); see also 3 P. Areeda & D. Turner, Antitrust Law paragraphs 612-13 (1978). In this case, the behavior that Gatlinburg is complaining of simply does not constitute anticompetitive conduct prohibited by the antitrust laws. 51 Gatlinburg has claimed that appellees unlawfully exercised their monopoly power by requiring Gatlinburg to pay exhorbitant prices under the lease agreement. The district court correctly responded to this charge by noting that an excessive price alone does not establish a violation of the antitrust laws, because imposition of a high price is not, in and of itself, an anticompetitive act. Memorandum, Aug. 13, 1985 at 9 (citing Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1093, 100 S.Ct. 1061, 62 L.Ed.2d 783 (1980)). 52 As for Gatlinburg's further allegations that appellee unlawfully exercised their power by requiring Gatlinburg to lease the figures rather than permitting an outright purchase, the district court found that the lease requirement in this case did not constitute a cognizable antitrust violation. We agree with the conclusion. 53 In our prior opinion we expressed extreme skepticism about the substantive validity of this monopoly lease claim based on maintenance of a single lease by an alleged monopolist. National Souvenir Center, supra, 728 F.2d at 513. Indeed, we noted that 54 Appellees' sale of the Lynch figures to other wax museum franchisees seriously undercuts appellants' arguments that appellees relied on the lease as a mechanism to discourage replacement of the figures with those of competitors during the lease term, or that leasing rather than selling significantly affected the market for figures. 55 Id. Despite its submission of evidence of additional leases (between appellees and other museums), appellant gives us no cause to question the appropriateness of our initial skepticism. Gatlinburg has not shown that it was forced to lease the Lynch figures as part of appellees' alleged conspiracy to monopolize the wax museum display figure market. 56 Leasing requirements, in combination with other practices, can sometimes impede competition and thereby violate the antitrust laws. For example, in United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 110 F.Supp. 295 (D.Mass.1953), aff'd 347 U.S. 521, 74 S.Ct. 699, 98 L.Ed. 910 (1954) (per curiam), the defendant shoe-making equipment manufacturer used an array of practices, including a lease-only policy, both to keep its customers from looking to other suppliers and to prevent its competitors from entering into the shoe machinery field. The court condemned the defendant's refusal to sell practices, finding them to be exclusionary. See id. (holding that United's lease provisions violated Sec. 4 of the Sherman Act); see also Hanover Shoe v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 U.S. 481, 88 S.Ct. 2224, 20 L.Ed.2d 1231 (1968) (holding that same activity violated Sec. 2 of the Sherman Act). 57 However, United Shoe is clearly distinguishable. In the instant case appellees did not have a lease-only policy--they generally sold their figures and in fact had sold them to appellant Gettysburg prior to leasing to Gatlinburg and to appellant Williamsburg subsequently. Furthermore, Gatlinburg has neither alleged nor demonstrated any practices other than the lease requirement (and the high prices, discussed above), whereas in United Shoe it was an entire panoply of practices, including a lease-only policy, that the court found to be unlawful. Consequently, we agree with the district court's conclusion that Gatlinburg has not shown a Section 2 violation. There is simply no evidence that appellees' leasing practices tended to create or perpetuate appellees' alleged monopoly position in the relevant market. 58 This leaves Gatlinburg's claim that appellees violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act--a claim which essentially mirrors Gatlinburg's Section 2 claim. Section 1 prohibits combinations and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 60, 31 S.Ct. 502, 515, 55 L.Ed. 619 (1911). The district court found that Gatlinburg had failed to demonstrate that any of appellees' conduct unreasonably restrained trade. Memorandum, Aug. 13, 1985 at 13 n. 14. We see no reason to upset this holding. In order to survive a motion for summary judgment, an antitrust plaintiff must come forward with some significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint. First National Bank v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 290, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 1593, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968). In this case, Gatlinburg has made general allegations of restraint of trade, but has not supported these allegations with any concrete evidence. See Complaint p 24, filed July 15, 1977. We therefore conclude that the district court properly dismissed Gatlinburg's Section 1 claim.