By: Derek Hawkins//September 15, 2017//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Andy Mohr Truck Center, Inc. v. Volvo Trucks North America
Case No.: 16-2788; 16-2839
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and FLAUM and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges
Focus: Sufficiency of Evidence
Volvo Trucks makes heavy‐duty trucks, and Andy Mohr Truck Center was one of its dealers. The dealership agreement governing their business dealings was negotiated and concluded in early 2010. Relations between them, unfortunately, soured quickly. Before too long, Volvo and Mohr were suing one another in separate federal lawsuits, which were consolidated later in the district court. When all was said and done, Mohr won a verdict of $6.5 million, and it prevailed on Volvo’s claim that it breached a commitment to build a new facility. Volvo staved off Mohr’s claim against it based on Volvo’s failure to award Mohr a Mack Truck franchise. We now have before us Volvo’s appeal and Mohr’s cross‐appeal, but before we delve into the merits, we turn to some of the nuances of heavy‐duty truck sales.
Volvo supports its evidentiary challenge to the inference of discrimination with three sub‐arguments: (1) that the comparators were not similarly situated in the relevant respects; (2) that the data that purported to show the discrimination was “cherry‐picked”; and (3) that the IDFPA applies only within the state of Indiana, and only to discrimination among Indiana dealers. Mohr defends the jury’s verdict on each of these points: it says the comparators were similar; the cherry‐picking argument was untimely; and the extraterritorial point was waived and in any event lacks merit.
Reversed and Remanded in part. Affirmed in part.