Opinion ID: 428533
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dealers' Day in Court Act

Text: 27 On appeal, Soler advances two contentions under the federal Dealers' Day in Court Act. 6 The first is that Mitsubishi acted in bad faith in establishing minimum sales volumes for Soler; the second is that Mitsubishi attempted to coerce and intimidate Soler into accepting a proposal whereby Mitsubishi would replace Soler with its own wholly owned subsidiary. 28 As for the latter contention, the allegation arises from Soler's difficulties in paying for orders. It essentially restates allegations made in claims under the Puerto Rican Dealers' Act and the Sherman Act. It is sufficiently related to covered articles of the sales procedure agreement to trigger the arbitration clause. As for the minimum sales agreement, the district court itself held with respect to another of Soler's counterclaims that minimum sales volumes were outside the scope of the arbitration clause. Neither Mitsubishi nor Chrysler challenges this conclusion. We reach the same conclusion.