Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Gulf States Reorganization Group, Inc. v. Nucor Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

July 15, 2013, Decided

No. 11-14983

Opinion

 [*1283]  JORDAN, Circuit Judge:

Like a swallow returning to Capistrano, this antitrust case is before us again. In 2006, we ruled that Gulf States Reorganization Group had sufficiently alleged injury, and reversed the district court's dismissal of its complaint against Nucor Corporation. See Gulf States Reorganization Group v. Nucor Corp., 466 F.3d 961, 967-68 (11th Cir. 2006). In so ruling, we explicitly noted that we were not addressing the merits of GSRG's claims. See id. at 967, 968 n.4. On remand, GSRG amended  [**2] its complaint, abandoning any claim that Nucor was a monopolist.

The claims in the amended complaint—like those in the initial complaint—arose from the purchase, by Nucor and Casey Equipment Company, of the assets of Gulf States Steel in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation proceeding in Alabama. After discovery, Nucor moved for summary judgment, and, in two reports, a special master recommended that the district court grant Nucor's summary judgment motion. The district court considered GSRG's objections but nonetheless accepted the reports in a published order. See Gulf States Reorganization Group v. Nucor Corp., 822 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (N.D. Ala. 2011).

GSRG now appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Nucor. After a thorough review of the parties' briefs and the extensive record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm. We write on one of the issues relevant to GSRG's attempted monopolization claim, in order to explain why cross-elasticity of supply is critical to defining the relevant market in this case. On all other issues raised by GSRG, we affirm based on the special master's reports and the district court's order.

Because the special master and the district court  [**3] catalogued the relevant facts, we set out only those that are necessary for our discussion. Where the facts are  [*1284]  disputed, we of course view the evidence in the light most favorable to GSRG. See, e.g., Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 586, 129 S. Ct. 2658, 174 L. Ed. 2d 490 (2009).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

721 F.3d 1281 *; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14187 **; 2013-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P78,453; 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 455; 2013 WL 3490824

GULF STATES REORGANIZATION GROUP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus NUCOR CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

Subsequent History: US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Gulf States Group, Inc. v. Nucor Corp., 2014 U.S. LEXIS 1620 (U.S., Feb. 24, 2014)

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. D.C. Docket No. 1:02-cv-02600-RDP.

Gulf States Reorganization Group, Inc. v. Nucor Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130254 (N.D. Ala., Sept. 29, 2011)

Disposition: AFFIRMED.

CORE TERMS

steel, rolled, coil, hot, oiled, pickled, manufacturers, monopolize, bid, cross-elasticity, auction, steel-producing, monopoly, district court

Antitrust & Trade Law, Sherman Act, Scope, Monopolization Offenses, Monopolies & Monopolization, Attempts to Monopolize, Sherman Act