Franchising (& Distribution) Currents

The court reversed summary judgment in favor of defendants Michael Foods and Sodexho on claims that they had engaged in and induced price discrimination in violation of § 2(a) and (f) of the RobinsonPatman Act (RPA), holding that the district court had applied the wrong standard to determine whether the alleged discrimination had a prohibited effect on competition, the fourth element of a prima facie case under § 2(a). Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶ 13,698, 491 E3d 171 (4th Cir. 2007) The Fourth Circuit held that when seeking to confirm an arbitration award in federal court where the lawsuit was originally filed in federal court and was stayed pending arbitration, the amount in controversy establishing diversity jurisdiction is based on the original complaint, not the amount actually awarded in the arbitration.\n The trial court disagreed, ruling that even if FVW were correct on its transfer claims, those issues would not operate as a defense to Isuzu's Lanham Act claims in the federal action.