Opinion
CIVIL ACTION, NO. 03-1132, SECTION "M"
August 12, 2003
ORDER
Before the Court are Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceeding and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint, both of which came for hearing on August 6, 2003, with oral argument. After consideration of the briefs and the arguments presented at the hearing, and for the following reasons, the Court grants the Motion to Stay (#4) this proceeding pending the outcome of state court proceedings. Plaintiffs Motion to amend the Complaint (#7) is denied at this time.
FACTS
Plaintiff Ricky's Diesel Service Inc. (Ricky's) is a business that builds, repairs, maintains and supplies diesel engines and parts to businesses in Terrebonne Parish Lousiana. Ricky's purchased these diesel engine parts almost exclusively from several parts suppliers.(Defendants). In early 2002, Ricky's also obtained a limited parts dealership, which created competition with Defendants' businesses. Plaintiff alleges that subsequent to his beginning the parts dealership, Defendants conspired to drive Ricky's out of the parts business to eliminate the competition by refusing to do business with Ricky's until it relinquished its limited parts dealership.
In September, 2002, Ricky's filed a Petition for Injunctive Relief and Damages in the 32nd Judicial District Court, Terrebonne Parish seeking damages under the provisions of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (La. R.S. 51:121 et. seq.). Ricky's also sought to enjoin Defendants from refusing to conduct business with Ricky's.
In April, 2003, Ricky's filed suit in this Court alleging that Defendants violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. et seq. Ricky's then sought to have the state court claim dismissed and consolidate the action in this Court. Defendants have refused and brought this Motion to Stay pending the outcome of the parallel state court proceeding. Plaintiff brings a Motion to file Amended Complaint in an effort to consolidate the case into this Court.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Louisiana antitrust statutes are essentially copies of the federal antitrust statutes and are generally interpreted in the same manner as the federal antitrust laws. Diliberto v. Continental Oil Co., 215 F. Supp. 863 (E.D.La 1963); Surgical Care Center of Hammond. L.C. v. Hospital Service District No. 1 of Tangipahoa Parish 2001 WL 8586 (E.D. La.). As such, a state court judgment determining these issues will constitute a bar to their reconsideration by this Court. Lafreniere Park Foundation v. Broussard. 221 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 2000). Therefore, Plaintiff should not be harmed by seeking relief in the Louisiana Courts.
Plaintiff initially filed suit (April, 2002) in Terrebonne Parish. Discovery is ongoing and currently there is a pre-trial hearing is set for September 10, 2003. Plaintiff waited almost one year before filing in this Court. The factors for abstention set forth in Colorado River v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976), have been met in this case. Federal policy against allowing plaintiff to remove from state to federal court requires plaintiff to abide by its forum choice. Allied Machinery Service, Inc. v. Caterpillar. Inc., 906 F. Supp. 652, 655 (S.D. Fla. 1995).
Accordingly, the Motion To Stay is GRANTED. The Motion for Amended Complaint is DENIED. Counsel for the Defendant is requested to submit a judgment consistent with this Order.