Turner v. Purina Mills, Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 3, 1993
Docket92-3588
StatusPublished

This text of Turner v. Purina Mills, Inc. (Turner v. Purina Mills, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Turner v. Purina Mills, Inc., (5th Cir. 1993).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 92-3588.

Leon J. TURNER, d/b/a Lee's Creek Farm and Ranch, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PURINA MILLS, INC., and Dan Robichaux, Defendants,

Purina Mills, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

May 7, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, WILLIAMS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:

Purina Mills, Inc. appeals a final judgment of the district court awarding G. Leon Turner

damages and attorney fees for violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer

Protection Law, La.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 51:1401 et seq. (LUTPA). Finding insufficient evidence for

submission of the case to the jury, we reverse and render judgment for Purina.

I.

As part of his business, Turner sells animal feed to area farmers. He first became an

authorized Purina dealer in 1976 in the Bogalusa, Louisiana area. In 1982 he opened a second

authorized dealership in the Folsom area. In 1984 Turner also began selling feeds manufactured by

other companies.

In 1986 he entered into a written dealership agreement with Purina. The agreement specified

that the parties were to conduct business with each other in a "moral, legal, and ethical manner." The

agreement provided Purina with the right to sell directly to large feeding operations in the area.

Either party was free to terminate the arrangement upon thirty days' notice to the other party. The

agreement expressly disclaimed that it created an exclusive dealership for Turner.

In the mid 1980s Turner's sales of Purina products began to fall. From the 1986-87 period

to the 1987-88 period alone, Turner's sales of Purina feed fell 42%. Both sides attribute this decline largely to the economic depression in the region brought on by the collapse of the oil industry.

According to Turner, his customers preferred less expensive feeds than those sold by Purina. In 1988

Purina warned Turner that continued poor sales of Purina feed would lead Purina to cancel his

dealership.

During the next two years Purina representatives made sales calls on customers buying feed

from Turner in an effort to get them to purchase Purina feed. Although the Purina representatives,

David Nelson and Dan Robichaux, invited Turner to accompany them on these sales calls, he

declined. A Purina dealer in the Covington area, Curtis Spencer, accepted invitations to accompany

the Purina representatives on sales calls. During these sales calls, the customers were offered credit

to purchase Purina products. The Purina representatives knew that some of these customers bought

feed from Turner.

In October 1990, Purina t erminated Turner's Bogalusa and Folsom dealerships because of

unsatisfactory sales performance. In response, Turner filed suit against Purina under LUTPA.

At trial before a jury, Turner presented evidence from four customers who purchased Purina

feed from Turner. These witnesses said they had been approached by Purina representatives in the

presence of Spencer in an effort to get them to buy more Purina feed. Turner also elicited testimony

from former Purina dealers in other parts of the country who said that Purina had previously sold feed

directly to large operations in their marketing areas and that Purina had worked through other dealers

in their areas. This testimony was admitted presumably to show a pattern and practice of Purina's

abusive behavior toward its dealers.

To demonstrate further Purina's supposed egregious behavior, Turner produced an internal

Purina memorandum he obtained during discovery. The memorandum, written by Robichaux after

Purina terminated Turner's dealership, stated:

Objective ... 1) We feel that we could maintain existing Purina business intermediately and achieve solid growth through a new dealer in the Bogalusa market although we may experience a loss short term.... and 2) work t oward eliminating Lee's Creek [Turner's business] as a major competitor in both the Bogalusa and Folsom markets....

Turner produced three witnesses at trial to prove his lost profits resulting from Purina's

alleged unfair trade practices. Two of the witnesses were loyal Purina customers who testified that they no longer purchase feed from Turner because he does not carry Purina products. The third

witness was Dr. Seymour Goodman, an economist who projected Turner's lost profits (over the

expected life of his business) due to the cancellation of the Purina dealership. Dr. Goodman's figures

were not based on any actual losses suffered by Turner and his figures did not take into account

possible product substitution by Turner's Purina customers. Dr. Goodman calculated Turner's lost

profits at approximately $150,000.

At the close of Turner's case, and again following the close of evidence, Purina moved for

judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). The district judge denied

the motions and the case went to the jury. On March 2, 1992, the jury returned a verdict in favor of

Turner for $49,500. On June 12, the district judge entered a judgment for Turner for $49,500, plus

interest, attorneys' fees totalling $39,140, and costs. Purina appeals the denial of its FRCP 50(a)

motion and the monetary award.

II.

A.

We review motions for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to FRCP 50(a) under the test

first established in this circuit by Boeing Company v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir.1969). In

considering whether there was sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury in the face of a 50(a)

motion, we examine all of the evidence in the light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable

to the non-movant. Id. at 374. A directed verdict is proper only if the evidence points "so strongly

and overwhelmingly in favor of one party" that a reasonable trier of fact could not arrive at a contrary

verdict. Id. Fundamentally, we must decide based on the evidence whether a reasonable jury could

conclude as this jury did. Id. See also Molnar v. Ebasco Constructors, Inc., 986 F.2d 115, 117 (5th

Cir.1993).

In this diversity case, we apply the substantive law of Louisiana. Erie Railroad Co. v.

Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 822, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938).

Turner sued for violation of LUTPA, alleging that Purina violated the Act by soliciting

Turner's customers with a Turner competitor (Spencer) present, offering credit to those customers, cancelling the dealership, and formulating a desire to eliminate Turner's dealership. Purina counters

that all of its actions were legitimate attempts to increase its market share and thus did not constitute

unfair trade practices.

B.

It is important at the outset to say generally what LUTPA makes illegal and what it does not

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

Related

Erie Railroad v. Tompkins
304 U.S. 64 (Supreme Court, 1938)
The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman
411 F.2d 365 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
Potvin v. Wright's Sound Gallery, Inc.
568 So. 2d 623 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1990)
Monroe Med. Clinic v. Hosp. Corp. of Am.
522 So. 2d 1362 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1988)
Roustabouts, Inc. v. Hamer
447 So. 2d 543 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1984)
Dufau v. Creole Engineering, Inc.
465 So. 2d 752 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1985)
Marshall v. Citicorp Mortg. Inc.
601 So. 2d 669 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1992)
State Ex Rel. Guste v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc.
528 So. 2d 198 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1988)
Coffey v. Peoples Mortg. & Loan of Shreveport
408 So. 2d 1153 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1981)
Bolanos v. Madary
609 So. 2d 972 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1992)
NATIONAL OIL SERV., ETC. v. Brown
381 So. 2d 1269 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1980)
Taquino v. Teledyne Monarch Rubber
893 F.2d 1488 (Fifth Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Turner v. Purina Mills, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-purina-mills-inc-ca5-1993.