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

Steves & Sons, Inc. v. Jeld-Wen, Inc.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division

October 5, 2018, Decided; October 5, 2018, Filed

Civil Action No. 3:16cv545




This matter is before the Court on PLAINTIFF STEVES AND SONS, INC.'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF (ECF No. 1191), which the parties addressed through briefs before and after the evidentiary hearing on equitable remedies ("the Remedies Hearing"). For the reasons set forth below, PLAINTIFF STEVES AND SONS, INC.'S MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF (ECF No. 1191) will be granted in part and denied in part.


On June 29, 2016, Steves and Sons, Inc. ("Steves") filed this action against JELD-WEN, Inc. ("JELD-WEN") by filing a COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DELCARATORY RELIEF, DAMAGES AND SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (ECF No. 1). The Complaint contained six counts, including COUNT ONE which alleged a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, § 15 U.S.C. § 18, and sought damages [**7]  under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, and injunctive relief under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, all by virtue by an allegedly illegal merger that occurred in 2012 but that subsequently substantially lessened competition in the so-called molded interior doorskin market. COUNT TWO alleged various breaches of contract. Steves voluntarily dismissed COUNT THREE (Breach of Warranty), COUNT FIVE (Specific Performance), and COUNT SIX (Trespass to Chatels). In COUNT FOUR, Steves sought declaratory relief and that claim remains for decision by the Court.

COUNTS ONE and TWO were tried to a jury and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Steves on both the antitrust claim and the breach of contract claims. Steves' claim for equitable relief is based on the jury's finding of liability on the antitrust violations in COUNT ONE and arises by virtue of Section 16 of the Clayton Act.

By agreement of the parties, the record in the antitrust and breach of contract trial is part of the record upon which the decision respecting Steves' motion for equitable remedies will be decided. In addition, the Court conducted a three day evidentiary hearing during which the parties presented additional evidence on the issues of equitable relief. [**8] 

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.

345 F. Supp. 3d 614 *; 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173704 **; 2018-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P80,553; 2018 WL 4855459

STEVES AND SONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. JELD-WEN, INC., Defendants.

Prior History: Steves & Sons, Inc. v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., 252 F. Supp. 3d 537, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75308 (E.D. Va., May 17, 2017)


doorskin, divestiture, plant, merger, customers, antitrust, manufacturers, door, divested, suppliers, prices, entity, hardship, remedies, laches, Acquisition, damages, costs, lessened, effects, parties, restore, cases, new owner, buyer, injunctive relief, termination, long-term, public interest, courts