Mobil Oil Corp. v. Blanton Et Al.

1985-05-20

Headline: Court denies review of Ninth Circuit ruling that upheld a jury finding that Mobil attempted to monopolize sales to Mobil dealers, leaving the damages judgment intact and preserving a circuit split.

Holding: The Court denied review, leaving in place the Ninth Circuit’s affirmation of a jury verdict that Mobil attempted to monopolize sales to Mobil dealers and is liable for treble damages.

Real World Impact:

Leaves Ninth Circuit’s attempted-monopolization verdict and treble damages intact.
Keeps Ninth Circuit’s Lessig doctrine unchanged, preserving a circuit split.
Allows similar dealer-based antitrust claims to proceed in the Ninth Circuit.

Topics: antitrust and competition, attempted monopoly, oil company and dealers, conflict among federal appeals courts

Summary

Background

A major oil company was sued by two Mobil dealers after a jury found the company had attempted to monopolize sales of oil, lubricants, and related products to Mobil dealers and awarded treble damages. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that verdict. The company argued on appeal that sales only to its dealers could not define the relevant market for an attempted-monopoly claim.

Reasoning

The Ninth Circuit avoided deciding the market-definition issue by relying on a long-standing Ninth Circuit rule (the Lessig doctrine), as refined in later cases like Gough, that allows an attempted-monopolization finding when the plaintiff proves either predatory conduct or a per se violation of the law against concerted restraints. Justice White, dissenting from the Supreme Court’s denial of review, explained that the rules governing concerted conduct (Section 1) and single-firm conduct (Section 2) are different, and that treating a per se contract violation as sufficient for a Section 2 attempt finding appears inconsistent with basic principles. The dissent also noted that many other federal appeals courts have rejected the Lessig approach.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court declined to review the case, the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and the treble-damage award remain in force in that case and the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit’s approach to attempted monopolization likewise remains binding within that circuit, so similar claims there can proceed without the Court deciding the market-probability question. The broader disagreement among federal appeals courts over that rule therefore persists.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White would have granted review to resolve the split among appeals courts and to clarify whether Section 2 requires proof of a dangerous probability of monopolization.