10-2811 Dynegy Marketing and Trade v. Multiut Corp.

Listen to this article

Antitrust
Price discrimination

To recover on a price discrimination claim under the Robinson-Patman Act, a plaintiff must prove damages.
“Multiut and Draiman devote much of their briefing on this issue to an argument that they established a prima facie violation of the Robinson-Patman Act. The district court rejected Dynegy’s arguments for summary judgment on those grounds, however, so we are unsure why Multiut and Draiman have pursued this line of argument at the expense of attempting to establish an actual injury resulting from Dynegy’s alleged price discrimination, an argument to which they dedicate a mere five sentences between their opening and reply briefs. In those five sentences, Multiut and Draiman contend that they have ‘identified evidence of lost sales and profits resulting from Dynegy’s price discrimination.’ They do not, however, give any indication of what that evidence was, or how it tied to Dynegy’s actions. We assume they are referring to the $5 million lost profits figure reported only in the properly excluded Draiman declaration, and their expert’s computation that the long-term difference in prices charged amounted to roughly $1.86 million, even though the expert expressly testified that he did no work relating to the Robinson-Patman counterclaim and, moreover, such computation is insufficient evidence of damages. See Texaco, 496 U.S. at 551. Even if Multiut and Draiman are able to ultimately prove that Dynegy violated the Robinson- Patman Act, they have not presented admissible evidence from which a jury could find that Multiut was injured as a result. The district court properly entered summary judgment on this counterclaim. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.”

Affirmed.

10-2811 Dynegy Marketing and Trade v. Multiut Corp.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Nordberg, J., Tinder, J.

Full Text