Opinion ID: 453199
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims under Section 1

Text: 22 Section 1 of the Sherman Act requires, by its own terms, proof of a contract, combination, ... or conspiracy. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1. 10 Concerted action is the essence of a Section 1 claim. The Supreme Court has, moreover, recently reiterated the well-settled rule that Section 1 does not proscribe independent action. Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Corp., --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 79 L.Ed.2d 775 (1984). 11 A manufacturer has a right to deal, or refuse to deal, with a particular distributor as long as it does so unilaterally. United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300, 39 S.Ct. 465, 63 L.Ed. 992 (1919). 23 Adducing proof of a conspiracy is not an easy task, despite the fact that direct proof of an express agreement is not required. Edward J. Sweeney & Sons, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc., 637 F.2d 105, 111 (3rd Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 911, 101 S.Ct. 1981, 68 L.Ed.2d 300 (1981). A plaintiff may rely on inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence. Id. at 111. There is, however, a line to be drawn between reasonable inferences and mere speculation. The district court was correct in its observation that [p]laintiff's conclusion or speculation as to existence of a conspiracy, without more, is not sufficient to establish a Section 1 violation. Terry's Floor Fashions v. Burlington Industries, 568 F.Supp. 205, 210 (E.D.N.C.1983).