From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

InBev USA LLC v. Hill Distributing Company

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jul 17, 2006
Case No.: 2:05 CV 298 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 17, 2006)

Opinion

Case No.: 2:05 CV 298.

July 17, 2006

Sarah D. Morrison (0068035) Trial Attorney Gerhardt A. Gosnell, II (0064919) Chester, Willcox Saxbe LLP Columbus, Ohio Attorneys for Defendant Hill Distributing Co.

James J. Hughes, III (0036754) Trial Attorney Kevin M. Kinross (0072395) Bricker Eckler LLP Columbus, Ohio Attorneys for Plaintiff InBev USA LLC

David W. Alexander (0017156) Trial Attorney Mary C. Mertz (0075225) Squire Sanders Dempsey LLP Columbus, OH Attorneys for R.L. Distributing Company and Tri-County Wholesale Distributors


PERMANENT INJUNCTION


This matter is before the Court following the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on April 3, 2006 (Document 56). As set forth in that Opinion and Order, summary judgment has been granted in favor of Defendants with respect to their claims seeking a declaration that InBev USA's termination of their franchise agreements would violate Ohio's Alcohol Beverages Franchise Act, O.R.C. § 1333.82, et seq. (the "Franchise Act"). Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in that Opinion and Order, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby finds that:

A. Plaintiff does not allege that just cause exists for the termination of its franchise agreements with Defendants, and Defendants do not consent to termination;

B. Defendants have prevailed on the merits of their counterclaims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief under the Franchise Act;

C. The merger or combination of InBev USA, LLC, Labatt USA LLC, Beck's North America and/or Latrobe Brewing Company does not permit Plaintiff to terminate the franchise agreement of any of the Defendants under the Franchise Act;

D. Defendants will be irreparably harmed absent the issuance of a permanent injunction; and

E. Defendants have no adequate remedy at law.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that InBev USA LLC, and its agents, servants, employees, independent contractors, attorneys, and those in active concert or participation with them, are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from doing any of the following based upon the events and transactions that formed the basis for this litigation, including but not limited to the merger or combination of InBev USA, LLC, Labatt USA LLC, Beck's North America and/or Latrobe Brewing Company:

1) Terminating or altering its franchise with Defendants;

2) Withholding the delivery of beverages ordered by Defendants;

3) Changing or altering the exclusive sales territory of Defendants;

4) Taking any action to appoint any person or entity as a distributor to replace Defendants in their exclusive sales territory, and;

5) Terminating the authorization for consent to import alcoholic beverages in the State of Ohio issued at the request of InBev to Defendants.

The Court further ORDERS that the cash, bond and/or letters of credit submitted by Defendants to secure the Restraining Order dated March 31, 2005, are hereby RELEASED by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

InBev USA LLC v. Hill Distributing Company

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jul 17, 2006
Case No.: 2:05 CV 298 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 17, 2006)
Case details for

InBev USA LLC v. Hill Distributing Company

Case Details

Full title:InBev USA LLC, Plaintiff, v. Hill Distributing Company, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Jul 17, 2006

Citations

Case No.: 2:05 CV 298 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 17, 2006)