Opinion ID: 2826960
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Written Exclusivity Agreements

Text: Insulate, quoting Insignia Systems, Inc. v. News America Marketing In-Store, Inc., 661 F. Supp. 2d 1039, 1062 (D. Minn. 2009), argues the “Appellees entered into written exclusive dealing contracts” that are “‘sufficient to establish a contract or conspiracy for the purposes of . . . exclusive dealing claims.’” (Alteration in original). The complaint does not support this argument. Insulate appears to rely on Graco’s 2007 letter as evidence of these “written exclusive dealing contracts.” Because the complaint does not allege the Distributors signed any agreement consenting to the letter’s terms or otherwise expressly agreed to its terms, there was no “‘meeting of the minds,’” Impro, 715 F.2d at 1273 (quoting Am. Tobacco, 328 U.S. at 810), so the letter alone cannot constitute a written exclusive-dealing contract. Insulate additionally suggests Graco and the Distributors’ preexisting distributorship contracts are express contracts not to compete because, in its 2007 letter, Graco referenced the contracts’ “best efforts clause.” Graco’s unilateral announcement of its decision not to supply distributors who also sell competing products did not transform a prior innocuous distributor agreement into a contract for exclusive dealing. See, e.g., United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300, 307 (1919) (determining a manufacturer’s later request that its products not be sold below certain prices did not transform preexisting sales agreements between the manufacturer and its distributors into agreements not to compete); Concord Boat -8- Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 207 F.3d 1039, 1058 (8th Cir. 2000) (explaining, although defendant’s discount program may have created “de facto exclusive dealing arrangements,” the discount agreements themselves “were not exclusive contracts”). Even though the complaint contains several conclusory references to a contract, the alleged facts do not suggest Graco entered into explicit exclusivity agreements with any of the Distributors. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions.” (internal marks omitted)).