This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Antitrust
Unfair Competition
Locality Price Discrimination and Below-Cost Sales; Propane Service

Silver Valley Propane Inc. v. Lamanco Inc., et al.

Published: Mar. 15, 2008 | Result Date: Jan. 25, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BCV06746 Bench Decision –  $47,488

Court

San Bernardino Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Elbert W. Muncy Jr.


Defendant

William M. Nassar

Elizabeth Grace

Paul S. White
(Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP)

R. Scott Johnson


Experts

Plaintiff

Jeffrey Miers
(technical)

Defendant

Karl S. Reinecker
(technical)

Facts

The parties are retail propane companies that compete in the High Desert region. Plaintiff Silver Valley Propane Inc. is a retailer serving the Barstow-Newberry Springs-Yermo-Daggett area, which has a customer base of about 2,500. Plaintiff serves approximately 64-68 percent of the relative market share, or about 1,700 to 1,800 customers. Plaintiff also serves the Lucerne Valley-Apple Valley (LVAV) area.

Defendant Lamanco/KELLY is a retailer of propane servicing the LVAV area. Lamanco/KELLY provided the startup capital for K&L and SKYFIRE. SKYFIRE is also a propane retailer servicing the same area as Lamanco/KELLY. Plaintiff alleged that SKYFIRE and K&L's pricing structure is 25-33 percent lower than KELLY.

SVP claimed it had been damaged by defendants' violations of the UPA. Defendants filed a cross-complaint against SVP and its president.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the defendant engaged in below-costs sales of propane and price discrimination.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant denied the allegations.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded in excess of $1 million. The defendants offered to pay $300,000.

Damages

The plaintiff alleged loss of business and future business. Plaintiff's expert testified that actual damages were $459,000 (before trebling).

Result

A jury originally found defendants liable and awarded damages in the amount of $329,760, which the court trebled to $989,280 pursuant to a mandatory provision of the Business and Professions Code. The court of appeal ordered a new trial on the issue of damages. The parties waived a jury for the second damages trial. The court awarded $19,865 in actual damages and $27,623 in treble damages.

Other Information

The plaintiff filed a motion for $244,000 in attorney's fees. That motion is off-calendared pending plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff has appealed the second trial decision. After the first trial, the court granted a motion for new trial on the issue of damages and plaintiff appealed. The court of appeal ordered a new trial on the issue of damages. FILING DATE: Nov. 25, 2002.

Length

11 days


#122858

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390