Roberts v. Exxon Corp.

427 F. Supp. 389, 1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 60,869, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16869
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana
DecidedMarch 16, 1977
DocketCiv. A. 18872
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 427 F. Supp. 389 (Roberts v. Exxon Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Roberts v. Exxon Corp., 427 F. Supp. 389, 1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 60,869, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16869 (W.D. La. 1977).

Opinion

PUTNAM, Senior District Judge.

The plaintiffs in this case, Marshall Roberts and Guy Benitez, allege violations of the antitrust laws by defendant, Exxon Corporation. Benitez operated two automatic service stations for Exxon from June 2, 1969 to September 6, 1971 under the terms of a “Commission Manager” contract under which he is considered by defendant as an employee of the company. Roberts, on the other hand, has operated as an independent dealer for Exxon in this area and continues to so act. The gravamen of the complaint is the fact that Exxon fixes the retail prices for the sale of its gasoline products at the stations operated by the “Commission Manager”, Benitez. The threshold question is whether or not this plaintiff is in fact an employee of Exxon or, for purposes of the antitrust laws, an independent business man.

The parties have stipulated the facts on this issue and both have moved for summary judgment based upon this stipulation. The record is most voluminous. The authorities cited by able counsel are legion. After reviewing the facts agreed to, the affidavits filed in support of the motions and the briefs, we reach the conclusion that the motion of plaintiffs should be granted and hold that for all intents and purposes this “Commission Manager” agreement confected by defendant is nothing more than a consignment of goods to Benitez enabling Exxon to fix retail prices at the pump.

A detailed review of the uncontested issues established by the record is not necessary for purposes of this decision. Suffice it to say that Benitez was clothed under the “Commission Manager” agreement with many of the attributes of an independent business man and also with many attributes of an employee. He operated his own independent garage and repair business on the premises occupied by him with defendant’s permission, he sold tires, batteries, and accessories (TBA) furnished to him by defendant on consignment and for which he was paid a commission based upon a fixed percentage. All gasoline and petroleum products used in the service station business was sent to him by Exxon ostensibly as Exxon’s own goods, but which he kept and stored at his own risk except for losses resulting from acts of God or other forces beyond his control. On gasoline he was paid a commission varying from three and half to four and a half cents per gallon, depending upon *391 the price and quality of the gasoline sold. Exxon fixed all prices. The agreement was terminable at will by either party. If the prices were not competitive and plaintiff Benitez lost money, it was his loss; there was no minimum income guaranteed to him. Regardless of the appellation given to his relationship with the defendant, the status of the goods in commerce was no different than the status of the goods in the lease consignment agreement before the Court in Simpson v. Union Oil Co., 1964, 377 U.S. 13, 84 S.Ct. 1051, 12 L.Ed.2d 98. We view it as a retail price fixing arrangement and a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1.

Since the decision in Simpson, it is clear that the relationship of the commission manager vis-a-vis the defendant distributor or manufacturer under general principles of master and servant is not the main issue in such litigation. Cf. Lehrman v. Gulf Oil Corp., 5 Cir. 1972, 464 F.2d 26; Greene v. General Foods Corp., 5 Cir. 1975, 517 F.2d 635, Part III, at page 647 et seq., and Goldinger v. Boron Oil Co., W.D.Pa.1974, 375 F.Supp. 400.

In Greene, supra, Judge Wisdom as the organ of the court gives an excellent discussion of the development of the law before and after Simpson v. Union Oil Co., supra. Given a device such as the commission manager agreement in this case as it is interpreted by defendant in addition to its already overwhelmingly powerful economic arsenal, would enable Exxon to underprice and drive from the market place all independent distributors or dealers in its petroleum products, thereby depriving the public of the benefit of competitive prices in a substantial area of the business.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether or not plaintiff Guy Benitez was an employee of the defendant Exxon is decided in favor of plaintiffs. The motion for summary judgment filed by Exxon is denied.

In view of the stipulation filed in the record on May 6, 1975, paragraph 5, to the effect that in the event plaintiffs prevail in their motion there may be further proceedings before this court to determine causation, impact, damages, and the defendant’s counterclaim, which will involve a lengthy trial of these issues, the question of law presented by this motion is controlling. Since there is clearly substantial ground for difference of opinion, and an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, we will certify it for an immediate appeal under 28 U.S. C.A. § 1292(b).

The attorneys for plaintiffs will forthwith prepare a formal order in keeping with the forging, for signature by the Court. Judgment shall not be entered by the Clerk until such order has been signed and filed.

Rendered at Lafayette, Louisiana, April 29, 1976. 1

ADDENDUM I

942-0105-1 S-1440-1 /S # 2163

LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA

SERVICE STATION MANAGER AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT made this 9th day of MARCH, 1970, between HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, having an office at 1211 Union Avenue

(Address)

_, _Memphis_, _Tennessee_

(City) (State)

hereinafter called “Humble”, and _GUY E. BENITEZ_,

whose address is 2307 W. ST. MARY BLVD. LAFAYETTE LOUISIANA

(Address) (City) (State)

hereinafter called “Manager”.

*392 WITNESSETH:

1. EMPLOYMENT

Humble hereby employs Manager, commencing on the 9th day of March 1970, subject to all the terms and conditions hereof, to superintend, manage and operate its service station located at_II. S. 167 & Chalmette Drive_, _Lafayette_, _Louisiana_.

2. HUMBLE’S PRODUCTS

Humble shall make, or cause to be made, deliveries of motor fuels and such other products as Humble shall select to the service station from time to time, in such quantities as Humble shall determine. Title to such products shall remain in Humble until sold for Humble’s account when title shall pass directly from Humble to the service station customer. All sales of Humble-owned products shall be at retail prices fixed by Humble from time to time.

The entire proceeds of all sales of Humble-owned products, both cash and service station delivery tickets pursuant to approved credit card sales, are the property of Humble.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sanna v. Friendly Service Stations, Inc.
593 F. Supp. 493 (D. Connecticut, 1983)
Johnson v. Mobil Oil Corp.
553 F. Supp. 195 (S.D. New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
427 F. Supp. 389, 1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 60,869, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-exxon-corp-lawd-1977.