WPCAP S.pߴߩG! wF-OTN{1tಭjhw('eҬ"_*<|7)Zuݠ ղ KN n"y MS:'j u}߾˭@{R3Ha /]*t)R 9ѯ;(~K+ؙa4X7SU;g@`FQLfd4%ԡĎ!Oď:!"Ȳf/1{SX_R9f #Ly\CQwolh+9×;֏^nB7,Tv N|/R^"     #"7"Y"{""" B 0 C c2f.UJ#"#"$R"${t)E-R436!;r>pDkG 07KUL 0eL# MUNNNMO( ONHOHObJONObeOU>mO^ OwO4OO mOOOObO3O"P22A` Futura Md BT' EASTSIDE VEND lawp210lawp21 .   6 4Heading 1XXXQC`$Century GothicQ          M22A` Futura Md BTM   C`$Century Gothic6 4Heading 2 X XXXQC`$Century GothicQ    M22A` Futura Md BTM X 6 4Heading 3XXXQC`$Century GothicQ      M22A` Futura Md BTM   <:Default Para<^Z:Footnote RefQ 8`$Century GothicQ  M22A` Futura Md BTM  8`$Century Gothic64Hyperlink    64Hypertext    <  :Footnote Tex X X < :Body Text I1 X XXXQC`$Century GothicQ  M22A` Futura Md BTM  X < :Body Text In X XXXQC`$Century GothicQM22A` Futura Md BTM X 8 6Block TextXXXQC`$Century GothicQ    2(\ e m u%}-2   8.ee m u%}- "8M22A` Futura Md BTM   _ KB.e m u%}- "XB6;X6X(2|$ 4 !e..      6;X6X6;  6XSR_5068\  `&Times New Roman     SearchTermSR_5213FN_B0087SR_5218                               d($      4 !e..      6;X6X6;  _eB.` hp x (#XB     XbX XbXX Xb  1  4XlXhXb  hXl ,AlthoughZenithandDrugMartarearguablyinconflictwithoneanotherbecauseZenithwould  havepermittedbuyerconspiratorliabilityundertheRobinson_Patman_ԀActwhileDrugMartdid | not,theissuebeforetheCourtdoesnotrequireittoresolvethisdifference.Asindicatedearlier, H thefactsofZenitharedistinguishablefromourcase. XbX XlXX Xb,dXXl ( 4 !e..      6;X6X6;  _eB.` hp x (#XB     XbX XbXX Xb  2  4XlXhXb  hXl ,EvenifSidneywasauthoritative,itisdistinguishablefromthefactsofthiscaseforthesame  reasonthatZenithisdistinguishable.D|  \ 4 !e..      6;X6X6;  _eB.` hp x (#XB     XbX XbXX Xb  3  4XlXhXb  hXl ,TheothertworeasonsforDrugMart&  =  &sdecisionare:(1)allowingevidenceofaconspiracyisnot  relevanttothesurvivingdamageclaimandwouldmerelyprovideforaremedywhereoneisnot } providedforand(2)PlaintiffandDefendantsettledastotheShermanActclaimsandallowing I thisconspiracyclaimwouldallowPlaintifftorecovertwice.-e ԳkIA`2WP TypographicSymbols           H 4 !e..      6;X6X6;  _e  X  X-XX XX-       XbX ?XbXX Xb#?X?Xb#  4  <4?  ??XbX?Ԁ# XbXX?Xb## X Xbn#? Thefederalcounterpartofsection11204(a)(3)issection13(a)oftheRobinsonPatmanAct,15  U.S.C.13(a).Thelanguageforallrelevantpurposesisnearlyidentical.Therefore,asthereare  nocasesonpointinterpretingsection11204(a)(3),thisCourtwilllooktofederalcasesinterpreting q section13(a)oftheRobinsonPatmanAct. ݌ = Ќ   # ?#  X  X    q 4 !e..      6;X6X6;  _eB.` hp x (#XB  X  X        5  __Q4   ݀_?CCEandPBGfiledseparateMotionstoDismiss.However,CCEfiledaMemorandumofLaw  settingforthitsargumentsinsupportofitsMotioninwhichPBGjoined.Thus,thisCourtwilladdress ~ CCEsargumentsastheyrelatetobothCCEandPBG.#?4# 2݌ J Ќ     X      Ԁ _ ; 4 !e..      6;X6X6;  _eB.` hp x (#XB  X  X        6  Q4   ݀?Undersection11209(b)(2)any personwhosebusinessorpropertyhasbeeninjuredor  threatenedwithinjurybyaviolationofsection11204ofthissubtitlemaymaintainanactionfor ~ damagesorforaninjunctionorboth8.Section11209(b)(4)furtherprovidesthatifaninjury J duetoaviolationofsection11204ofthissubtitleisfound,theinjuredshallbeawardedthree f timestheamountofactualdamageswhichresultsfromtheviolation,withcostsandreasonable 2 attorneysfees.  2݌  Ќ   #?#  X      H 4 !e..      6;X6X6;  _eB.` hp x (#XB  X  X        7  Q4   ݀?Inparagraph55oftheComplaintPlaintiffonlyallegesthatPBGsolddirectlytovendingservice  providerswhopurportedlycompetewithEastsidescustomers.TheComplaintcontainsnosimilar ~ allegationastoCCE.#?#  4 !e..      6;X6X6;  _eB.` hp x (#XB  X  X        8  Q4   ݀?AlthoughPlaintiffhasnotallegedaconspiracywithrespecttoitssection11204(a)(3)claim,this  Courtbelievesthelogicstillapplies.Asinantitrustconspiracycases,Plaintiffisnotlikelytohave ~ accesstotheexactpricesasupplierhaschargedtheallegedfavoredpurchasersorwhenthose J purchasesoccurred.Thisinformationismostlikelytoberevealedindiscovery. 2݌ f Ќ     X   &  #?#  4 !e..      6;X6X6;  _eB.` hp x (#XB  X  X        9  Q4   ݀_?CCEsnorPBGsMotionstoDismisschallengewhetherPlaintiffadequatelyallegedthatthe  productssoldtoEastsideandtheallegedfavoredpurchaserswereoflikegradeandquality. ~ Therefore,thisCourtwillassumethattheproductsareoflikegradeandqualityforpurposesof J thisdecision._#?# h 4 !e..      6;X6X6;  _eB.` hp x (#XB  X  X        10  Q4   ?ԀAverticalrestraintinvolvesan agreement[]betweenpersonsatdifferentlevelsofthemarket  structure,suchasmanufacturers[like_CCE_Ԁand_PBG_]anddistributors[likeEastside].Natural | Resources,Inc.,302Md.at56,n.4.Ahorizontalrestraintwouldinvolve agreementsbetween H  competitorsatthesamelevelofthemarketstructuretominimizecompetitionasforinstance  between_CCE_Ԁand_PBG_.Id. 2݌ | Ќ   #?#  X  X     4 !e..      6;X6X6;  _eB.` hp x (#XB  X  X        11  Q4   ݀ Plaintiffhasnotpledtheelementsofacontract,sowithoutmore,thisCourtwilltreatPlaintiffs  allegationsasattemptingtoaveraconspiracy. Ԁ  4 !e..      6;X6X6;  _eB.` hp x (#XB?  12  #?#Ԁ Allofthesecasesinvolvedallegationsthatthedefendantsactionsgaverisetoanunlawful  restraintoftradeundersection11204(a)(1).ThisCourtfindsthattheirlogicappliesequallytoan ~ allegationofpricediscriminationundersection11204(a)(3)forbothinvolveaviolationofthe J MarylandAntitrustActand,thus,satisfytheunlawfulpurpose/maliceelementfora_tortious_ f interferencewithperspectivebusinessadvantageclaim. (2$ 4 !e..      6;X6X6;  Xe  0  #|x( $e..      6!X6X6!Adobe PDF0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular   < - -0d:AZ&Century Gothic L4 [4:i+00/U  ) H   $   4 !e..      6;X6X6;  _       0e%}- "X0XlXXbXXXl J =8dd8=')-IEASTSIDEVEND Q**    hE.e m u%}- "eXE DISTRIBUTORS,INC.     u   INTHE  0%}- "eX0Q**     E.e m u%}- "XEPlaintiff m     u   CIRCUITCOURT   0%}- "eX0Q**      hE.ee m u%}- "XEV.     m     u   FOR y    h0%}- "eeX0Q**   n  E.e m u%}- "XE COCACOLA,  m     u   BALTIMORECITY c  0%}- "eX0 ENTERPRISES.,INC,ETAL Q**   X   E.e m u%}- "XECASENO.:24C04003998 M    0%}- "eX0Q**   B   X h3e%}- "X3DefendantsQ* 7   X x3"%}- "eX3Q**********************  ,|    x  E.ee m u%}- ""XEMEMORANDUMOFDECISION  !q    XThiscasecomesbeforetheCourtonDefendantMarsSuperMarket,Inc.s  [ ( Mars),DefendantCocaColaEnterprises,Inc.s( _CCE_)andPepsiBottling E Group,Inc.s( _PBG_)MotionstoDismiss,PlaintiffEastsideVendDistributors,Inc.s / ( Eastside)Responses,theRepliesfiledbyeachoftheDefendants,andthe  partiesoralhearing.  Plaintiffsclaimsarisefromtheallegeddiscriminatorypricingby_CCE_Ԁand  _PBG_ԀonproductspurchasedbyPlaintifffrom_CCE_Ԁand_PBG_.Accordingtothe  Complaint,Plaintiffisinthebusinessof purchasingandresellingbeveragesand q  food onlytovendingmachinesuppliers,ownersandoperators.Complaintat [" 3&7.Inotherwords,itisawholesalertothevendingmachineindustry.A E$! substantialportionofitsbusinessinvolvesthesaleofCokeandPepsiproductsit /&!# purchasedfrom_CCE_Ԁand_PBG_ԀpriortothefilingoftheComplaint.Complaintat (i#% 3&8.AccordingtoPlaintiff,both_CCE_Ԁand_PBG_Ԁweretheexclusivebottlersin *S%' thegeographicregioninwhichPlaintiffEastsideoperates.Complaintat4&5. +=') I IH I  _EssentiallyPlaintiffcontendsthatbothCCEandPBGchargeditmorethan  itchargedotherpurchasersinthesamegeographicregionforproductsoflike  grade,quality,andquantity.Tosupportthisallegation,Plaintiffallegesthat  variousgrocerystorechainretailers,suchasDefendantMars,andahybrid n  wholesalerretailer(referredtointhecomplaintas clubstores),SamsClub, X  offeredforsaletothegeneralpublicCCEandPBGproductsatpricesbelow B  whichPlaintiffcouldhavepurchasedthoseproductsfromCCEandPBG. ,|  Complaintat2426,32,4245.PlaintiffalsoallegesthatbothCCEandPBG f  charged othercustomerslowerpricesthantheychargedPlaintiffforthesame P products.Complaintat23,27&41.WhilePlaintiffdidspecifytheexact : pricesPBGandCCEchargeditandtheothercustomers,itdidnotidentifythose $  othercustomersbynameorevengeographiclocation.Id.  PlaintifffurtherallegesthatCCEandPBG ownandoperate[s]vending  machinesthatcompetewithvendingmachinesownedandoperatedby  Eastsidescustomers.Complaintat35&51. | PlaintiffdescribesDefendantMarsas asupermarketchainconsistingof f! seventeenstoresandadistributioncenter.Complaintat6.Plaintiffalleges P#  thatPBGandCCE chargedlowerpricestoMarsthan[CCE]andPBGhave :% " chargedEastsideforcolaproductsoflikegrade,quality,andquantityand $'t"$  Marsknowsthat[CCE]andPBGhavechargedMarslowerpricesthanEastside )^$& forcolaproductsoflikegrade,quality,andquantity.Complaintat56and *H&( 57.TheComplaintalsoallegesthatMarsknowingly receivedthebenefitof  lowerpricesand induced[CCE]andPBGtochargeMarslowerpricesthan  [CCE]andPBGchargeEastsideforcolaproductsoflike,grade,quality,and  quantity.Complaintat6869. n   XӀBasedonthesefactsandothersthisCourtmaysetforthbelowinits X  discussion,Plaintiffhasallegedfour(4)countsagainstDefendantsCCEandPBG: B  CountI!DiscriminatoryPricinginViolationoftheMarylandAntitrustAct;CountIV ,|  ЄRuleofReasonViolationofMarylandAntitrustAct;CountVTortious f  InterferencewithProspectiveBusinessAdvantage;andCountVI!Injunctive P Relief. :  XInaddition,thePlaintiffallegesfour(4)countsagainstDefendantMars: $ CountIIKnowinglyReceivingandInducingDiscriminatoryPricingfromPBGand  CCE;CountIIIAidingandAbetting;CountVTortiousInterference;andCount  VIInjunctiveRelief.  Thiscasepresentsissuesoffirstimpressionfortherearefewcases,and | evenfewerapplicable,interpretingtheMarylandAntitrustAct.InPartItheCourt f! willaddressPlaintiffsclaimsagainstMars.InPartII,theCourtwilladdressthe P#  claimsagainstDefendantsCCEandPBG.  :% "  X  ANALYSIS (i#% MotiontoDismissStandard *S%'   *H&(  X   InconsideringamotiontodismissfiledpursuanttoMarylandRuleofCivil   Procedure2322,theCourt mustassumethetruthofallwellpleadedrelevant  andmaterialfactualallegationsinthecomplaintaswellasanyreasonable  inferencesthatmightbedrawnfromthoseallegations.Hoganv.TheMaryland n  StateDentalAssn,155Md.App.556,561(2004)(citingAlliedInv.Corp.v.Jasen, X  354Md.547,555(1999)(othercitationsomitted)).Aclaimisproperlydismissed B  whentheallegedfactsandreasonableinferences,ifproven,wouldstillfailto ,|  affordrelieftoPlaintiff.Id.(citingBobov.State,346Md.706,709(1997);Morrisv. f  OsmoseWoodPreserving,340Md.519(1995)).TheCourtislimitedtoexamining P onlythesufficiencyoftheallegationsinthepleadingandwhetheritpleadsa : legallysufficientclaim.HowardCountyv.Connolley,137Md.App.99,114 $ (2001);Porterfieldv.MascariII,Inc.,374Md.402,414(2003).      X  INTRODUCTION   X  ThefewcasesinterpretingtheMarylandAntitrustAct( Act)donotapply  tothequestionsandfactsraisedinthiscase.However,sections11202(a)(1)and | (2)explicitlyprovidethattheAct istocomplementthebodyoffederallaw f! governingrestraintsoftrade,unfaircompetition,andunfair,deceptive,and P#  fraudulentactsorpracticesandthat [i]tistheintentoftheGeneralAssembly :% " that,inconstruingthissubtitle,thecourtsbeguidedbytheinterpretationgiven $'t"$ bythefederalcourtstothevariousfederalstatutesdealingwiththesameor )^$& similarmatters.TheRobinsonPatmanActisthefederalcounterparttothe *H&( MarylandAntitrustAct.Therefore,theCourtwilllooktodecisionsinterpretingthe  RobinsonPatmanActtocomplementtheMarylandAntitrustAct.See15U.S.C.  13(f).   X  PARTI:CLAIMSAGAINSTDEFENDANTMARS n  CountII:KnowingReceiptandInducementofDiscriminatoryPricing X  inViolationoftheMarylandAntitrustAct  B   X  Whetherthe knowingreceiptandinducementofdiscriminatorypricingis ,|  aviolationoftheMarylandAntitrustActisanissueoffirstimpressionforthe f  Marylandcourts.Inlightofthisvoid,thisCourtturnstotherulesofstatutory P constructiontodeterminewhethertheActprovidesforbuyerliability.%  %,ԀThe : primarysourcefordetermininglegislativeintentisthelanguageofthestatute $ itself.SeePricev.State,378Md.378,38788(2003)(citingMarriottEmployeesv.  MVA,346Md.437,44445(1997)).AstheCourtofAppealsstatedinPrice, all  statutoryinterpretationbegins,andusuallyends,withthestatutorytextitself.  Price,378Md.at387.Accordingly,thisCourtwillbeginitsanalysisbylookingat | theplainlanguageoftheMarylandAntitrustAct. f! PlaintiffallegesthatDefendantMarsviolatedsection11204(a)(3)ofthe P#  MarylandAntitrustActbyknowinglyinducingandreceivingdiscriminatoryprices :% " fromPBGandCCE.Section11204(a)(3)oftheActstates: $'t"$ XbXXXbXbXXXb  <(\ e m u%}-eeX<  Xs0  XXb;?;?XbX?Apersonmaynot...directlyorindirectlydiscriminate )^$& inpriceamongpurchasersofcommoditiesorservices *S%' oflikegradeandquality,iftheeffectofthe *H&( discriminationmay:(i)Substantiallylessencompetition; +=') J = J$ J  (ii)Tendtocreateamonopolyinanylineoftradeor  commerce;or(iii)Injure,destroy,orprevent  competitionwithanypersonwhograntsorknowingly  receivesthebenefitofthediscriminationorwith  customersofeitherofthem.#?X?Xb1##;?1#s0T1݌  Ќ   eeX\ eXXX;XbXXX   <(` e m u%}-eeX< K B.e m u%}- "` eXBMd.CodeAnn.,Com.Law11204(a)(3).TheplainlanguageoftheActmakes n  nomentionofbuyerliability. c   Xe KB.` hp x (#eXBSection2(f)oftheRobinsonPatmanAct,however,explicitlycreatesbuyer M   liabilityforthereceiptofdiscriminatorypricing. [T]heemphasisofthe 7  [RobinsonPatman]Actisin2(a),whichprohibitspricediscriminationbysellers. !q  Indeed,theoriginalPatmanbillasreportedbytheCommitteesofbothHouses  [ prohibitedonlyselleractivity.Section2(f),makingbuyersliableforinducingor E receivingpricediscriminationbysellers,wastheproductofabelatedfloor / amendmentneartheconclusionoftheSenatedebates.%  %:%  %9:%  %W:%  %u: b%   ݀GreatAtlanticand  PacificTeaCo.,Incv.FTC,440U.S.69,76(1979).  x7Section2(a)oftheRobinsonPatmanActis,inrelevantpart,substantively  identicaltosection11204(a)(3)oftheMarylandAntitrustAct.Therefore,likeits  federalcounterpart,theplainlanguageoftheMarylandAntitrustActclearly q  createssellerliability. [" Section2(f)oftheRobinsonPatmanActstatesthat [i]tshallbeunlawful E$! foranypersonengagedincommerce,inthecourseofsuchcommerce, /&!# knowinglytoinduceorreceiveadiscriminationinpricewhichisprohibitedby (i#% thissection.Asindicatedabove,thisprovisioncreatesbuyerliability.Plaintiff *S%' arguesthatthelanguageinsection11204(a)(3)(iii)oftheMarylandAntitrustAct +=')   $    similarlycreatesbuyerliability.Section11204(a)(3)(iii)statesthatapersonmay  notdiscriminateiftheeffectofthediscriminationmay [i]njure,destroy,or  preventcompetitionwithanypersonwhograntsorknowinglyreceivesthe  benefitofthediscrimination.(emphasisadded).Thislanguageidentifiesoneof n  theinjurytocompetitionelements,alsoknownasan antitrustinjury,thata X  Plaintiffmustproveinacaseagainsttheseller.SeeTexaco,Inc.v.Hasbrouck, B  496U.S.543,556(1990);HooverColorCorp.v.BayerCorp.,199F.3d160,164(4th ,|  Cir.1999).Thatprovision,however,doesnotcreatebuyerliabilityandtheplain f  languagedoesnotpermitthisCourttoholdotherwise. P X;ThePlaintiffcitesnootherlanguageindicatingalegislativeintentto : createbuyerliability.Therefore,unlikethefederalcounterpart,theplain $ languageoftheMarylandAntitrustActdoesnotcreatebuyerliability.Rather,  theplainlanguagecreatesonlysellerliability.  B X  ?(` ` hp xX(#?Wherethestatutorylanguageisfreefromsuch  ambiguity,courtswillneitherlookbeyondthewordsof  thestatuteitselftodeterminelegislativeintentnoradd | toordeletewordsfromthestatuteitself.Onlywhen q  facedwithambiguitywillcourtsconsiderboththeliteral f! orusualmeaningofthewordsaswellastheirmeaning [" inlightoftheobjectivesandpurposesofthe P#  enactment.Asourpredecessorsnoted,wecannot E$! assumeauthoritytoreadintotheActwhatthe :% " Legislatureapparentlydeliberatelyleftout.Judicial /&!# constructionshouldonlyberesortedtowhenan $'t"$ ambiguityexists.Thereforethestronglypreferrednorm (i#% ofstatutoryinterpretationistoeffectuatetheplain )^$& languageofthestatutorytext. *S%'   *H&(   E.` hp x (#` XxEPetev.State,384Md.47,58(2004)(citingPrice,378Md.at38788).Sincethe   plainlanguageoftheActdoesnotmirrortheRobinsonPatmanAct,thisCourt  cannotimposesuchliability.ThisCourtwillnotcreatebuyerliabilitywherethe  statutorylanguagecreatesnone. n   XAlthoughthisCourtappreciatesthedirectivetoreadtheRobinson X  PatmanActascomplementaryoftheMarylandAntitrustAct,thisCourtwillnot B  createnewstatutorylanguagefromgeneralpolicylanguage. ,|   X` ` Eventhoughacertainprovision,whichhasbeen f  omittedfromastatute,appearstobewithinthe  [ obviouspurposeorplanofthestatute,andtohave P beenomittedmerelybyinadvertence,neverthelessthe E courtisnotatlibertytoaddtothelanguageofthelaw; : andthecourtmustholdthatthelegislatureintendedto / omittheprovision,howeverimprobablethatmay $ appearinconnectionwiththegeneralpolicyofthe  statute.   P P?( ` hp x (#X(#?Roganv.BaltimoreandO.R.&Co.,188Md44,54(1947)(citationomitted)  (emphasisadded);Simpsonv.Moore,323Md.215,22526(1991)( [W]earenot  freetojudiciallyplaceinthestatuteanentiresectionoflanguagewhichisnot | there.) f!  XAssumingthetruthofallwellpleadedrelevantandmaterialfactual P#  allegations,andmakingallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthePlaintiff,the :% " factsstillfailtoaffordrelieftoPlaintiff.Theallegedfacts,ifproven,would $'t"$ establishPlaintiffasabuyer,notaseller,oftheallegeddiscriminatorypricing )^$& product. *H&(      Fortheaforementionedreasons,thisCourtwilldismissPlaintiffsknowing  receiptandinducementclaimagainstDefendantMars.    X  CountIII:AidingandAbettingDiscriminatoryPricing  inViolationofTheMarylandAntitrustAct  y   X  PlaintiffallegesthatDefendantMars,apurchaserofCCEandPBG c  productsandallegedcompetitorofPlaintiff,aidedandabettedCCEandPBGs M   allegeddiscriminatorypricing.Aidingandabettingliabilityofnonsellersunder 7  theMarylandAntitrustActisnotonlyaquestionoffirstimpressioninMaryland, !q  butalsoaquestionoffirstimpressionundertheRobinsonPatmanAct.Forthose  [ reasons,thisCourtmustlooktothestatutorylanguageoftheMarylandAntitrust E Actandinterpretationbyothercourtsofsimilarliabilityquestions. / ` `  P PE.` hp x (#` X(#ESection11204(a)(3)oftheMarylandAntitrustActstates,inrelevantpart,  that [a]personmaynot...directlyorindirectlydiscriminateinpriceamong  purchasers.First,theplainlanguageoftheActmakesnoexplicitreferenceto  aidingandabetting.Moreover,theUnitedStateSupremeCourtininterpreting  asimilarprovisionoftheSecuritiesExchangeActof1934heldthatthegeneral q  inclusionof directlyandindirectlylanguagedoesnotcreateaidingand [" abettingliabilitybecauseaidingandabettingliabilityextendsbeyond directly E$! orindirectlyliability.CentralBankofDenverv.FirstInterstateBankofDenver, /&!# 511U.S.164,17576(1994). (i#% InCentralBankaprivateplaintiffbroughtsuitforsection10(b)violationsof *S%' theSecuritiesExchangeActof1934allegingthatCentralBankaidedand +=')      abettedanotherdefendantsfraud.TheCourtheldthatsection10(b)didnot  imposeaiderandabettorliabilityemphasizingthat thetextofthestatute  controlsourdecision.Id.at173. Theissue,however,isnotwhetherimposing  privatecivilliabilityonaidersandabettorsisgoodpolicybutwhetheraiding n  andabettingiscoveredbythestatute.Id.at177.AccordingtotheCourt,the X  plainlanguageoftheSecuritiesExchangeAct, directlyandindirectly,didnot B  expresslycreateaiderandabettorliability,andtheCourtrefusedtoreadinto ,|  theActthatwhichwasnotthere. f  Moreover,theCourtopinedthathaditnotsoruledonplainlanguage P grounds,itwouldhavereachedthesameresultfor Congressknewhowto : imposeaidingandabettingliabilityandotherprivaterightsofaction.Id.at $ 176.TheCourtcitedotherprovisionsintheSecuritiesExchangeActwhich  explicitlyprovidedforsuchliabilityasevidenceofCongressknowledge.Id.  Yet,Congressdidnotuselanguagecreatingaiderandabettorliabilityin  section10(b).SeealsoDeptEcon.Dev.v.ArthurAnderson&Co.,924F.Supp. | 449,475477(findingthat,pursuanttoCentralBank,theplainlanguageofRICO f! didnotprovideforaidingandabettingliability). P#  Justlikesection10(b)oftheSecuritiesExchangeAct,theMaryland :% " AntitrustActemploysthelanguage directlyandindirectlytoimposeliability. $'t"$  Similarly,itisreasonabletoinferthattheMarylandlegislatureknewhowto )^$&      imposeadditionalavenuesofliabilitybecausetheyincludedexplicitconspirator  liabilitylanguageinsections11204(a)(1)and(2)oftheMarylandAntitrustAct.   Additionally,theCourtinCentralBankindicatedthatbecausean  elementofsection10(b)requiresthefraudulentacttobemanipulativeor n  deceptive,imposingaidingandabettingliabilitywouldpermitliabilitywithout X  requiringproofofthatelement.511U.S.at177.Likewise,theMarylandAntitrust B  Actcontainsarequirementthatwouldalsobecircumventedbyimposingaider ,|  andabettorliability.Theplaintiffisrequiredtoprovethatthecompetitiveinjury f  istraceabletothedefendant.SeeDrugMartPharmacyCorp.v.American P HomeProds.Corp.,2005WL1634617(E.D.N.YJuly15,2005)(citingAmerican : BooksellersAssn,Inc.v.Barnes&Noble,Inc.,135F.Supp.2d1031,103940 $ ( Plaintiffshavecitednolawthatpermitsthemtoaveragetheeffectsof  purportedlyunlawfulactsofmanypublishersandwholesalersinordertoshow  that,onaverage,plaintiffswereharmedbydefendantsreceiptofthebenefitof  thoseviolations.))(othercitationsomitted).Aiderandabettorliabilitywould | circumventthecompetitiveinjuryelementbecausespecificinjury,traceableto f! theaidingandabettingdefendant,wouldnotberequired. P#  Finally,CentralBankalsonotedthereisnogeneralpresumptionthatthe :% " plaintiffmaysueaidersandabettorsbecause Congresshasnotenacteda $'t"$ generalcivilaidingandabettingstatute.511U.S.at182.NorhastheMaryland )^$& legislature. *H&(      InMatsushitaElec.Indus.Co.,Ltd.v.ZenithRadioCorp.,475U.S.574  (1986),theCourtpermittedtheconspiratorliabilityclaimstoproceedagainst  thedefendantseventhoughtheRobinsonPatmanActdidnotexplicitlyprovide  forsuchliability.AlthoughtheCourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorof n  allegedlyconspiringdefendants,theCourtwouldhaveallowedplaintiffsto X  proceedagainstalldefendantsonaconspiracytheoryiftheallegedfactsmet B  thesummaryjudgmentstandard.  ,|   NotwithstandingZenith,thereliesakeydistinctionbetweenthatcaseand f  thepresentcase.InZenith,thecourtdidnotexpandliabilitytomakenonsellers P liable.Ratherthecourtusedconspiratorliabilitytoallowplaintifftojoin : additionaldefendantsellersbecauseoftheirallegedconspiracytoanother $ sellersstatutoryviolations.Theapplicationofconspiracyliabilityinthatmanner  isentirelyconsistentwiththeplainlanguageofsection2(a)oftheRobinson  PatmanAct,whichmakessellersliableforpricediscrimination.   InthecasebeforethisCourt,however,PlaintiffallegesthatDefendant | Marsisliableinabuyercapacity,notasellercapacity.Complaint6869 f! (allegingthatMarsknowinglyreceivedandinducedthebenefitoflowerprices); P#  Id.at75(Marsaidedandabetted[CCE]andPBGsdiscriminatorypricing). :% " PlaintiffdoesnotallegethatMarsdiscriminatedinpricewhenitsoldCCEand $'t"$  PBGproductstoitspurchasers.SincetheplainlanguageoftheMaryland )^$&        AntitrustActdoesnotprovidefornonsellerliability,thereisnobasistoapply  aiderandabetterliabilitytoDefendantMarsinrelianceontheZenithruling.   Mostrecently,inDrugMartPharmacyCorp.v.AmericanHomeProducts  Corp.,2005WL1634617(E.D.N.YJuly15,2005),over3,000pharmaciesbrought n  suitagainstpharmaceuticalmanufacturersfor,amongotherthings,conspiracy X  undertheRobinsonPatmanAct.Theplaintiffsallegedthatthedefendant B  pharmaceuticalmanufacturersconspiredto giv[e]discountsorrebateson ,|  brandnameprescriptiondrugstohealthmaintenanceorganizationsandmail f  orderpharmacies,whiledenyingdiscountsto[plaintiffs].Id.at*1.TheCourt P grantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthedefendantastotheconspiracy : claimholdingthatthereisnocauseofactionforconspiracyunderthe $ RobinsonPatmanAct.Id.at*5.    ! l<` Inarrivingatitsdecision,theCourtdidnotdiscussZenith. XbXXXb  XbXh Xb# "  1     yJustXbXhXb  However,itdid  questiontheauthorityofasimilarcase,SidneyMorris&Co.v.NatlAssnof  Stationers,OfficeOutfitters&Mfrs,etal,40F.2d620(7thCir.1930).TheCourtin | DrugMartindicatedthattheSidneyCourtinitiallyappearedtofindthatthe f! RobinsonPatnamActdoesnotprovideforconspiratorliability,butthenruled P#  thatthedefendantscouldbeheldliableforpricediscriminationbasedsolelyon :% " theirparticipationintheconspiracy.SeeDrugMart,2005WL1634617,at*3.This $'t"$ CourtdoesnotfindSidneyMorrisauthoritativeforthereasonthatitisinternally  inconsistent. XbXXXb  $ "  2     }JustXbXh Xb    TheCourtinDrugMartsupportsitsdecisionnottofollowSidneyMorris,in  part,onthebasisoftheRobinsonPatmanActsplainlanguage. XbXXXb  % "  3     JustXbXh Xb  󀀀 Theword n  conspiracyisnotmentionedeitherinthestatuteorinitslegislativehistory.Id.at X  *4.Additionally,theDrugMartCourtstates,asthisCourtindicatedabove,that B  permittingaiderandabettorliabilitywouldcircumventarequiredelementof ,|  section11204(a)(3)oftheMarylandAntitrustAct. f  Asthecasescitedpreviouslyindicate,theCourtmustnotlookbeyond P thewordsofthestatutewhenconfrontedwithunambiguouslanguage. : Therefore,itmustconcludethatthereisnoaidingandabettingliabilityunder $ theMarylandAntitrustAct.WhiletheMarylandAntitrustActdoesprovidefor  conspiracyliabilitywithregardtosomeviolations,nowheredoesitprovidefor  aiderandabettorliability.AstheCourtstatedinAlleco,Inc.v.Harry&Jeanette  WeinbergFound.,99Md.App.696,701(1994), [u]ntileithertheLegislatureor | theCourtofAppealscreates[civilliabilityforaidingandabettingatortfeasor]in f! Maryland,itwouldservenopurposetoexpounduponhowtheelementsofthe P#  tortshouldbedefined.ThisCourtwillnotcreateaidingandabettingliability :% " whentheGeneralAssemblyhasclearlynotprovidedforit.IftheCourt  permittedtheaidingandabettingclaimtoproceed,itwouldcontravenethe  statutesplainlanguagemakingonlysellersliable.Fortheaforementioned  reasons,thisCourtwilldismisstheclaimforaidingandabettingdiscriminatory n  pricinginviolationoftheMarylandAntitrustAct .  X   X  CountV:TortiousInterferencewithProspectiveBusinessAdvantage  B   X'  Tostateaclaimfortortiousinterferencewithaprospectivebusiness ,|  advantageunderMarylandlaw,aplaintiffmustallege: (1)intentionaland f  willfulacts;(2)calculatedtocausedamagetotheplaintiffinherlawfulbusiness; P (3)donewiththeunlawfulpurposetocausesuchdamageandloss,without : rightorjustifiablecauseonthepartofthedefendants(whichconstitutes $ malice);and(4)actualdamageandlossresulting.Carterv.AramarkSports  andEntertainmentServs.,Inc.,153Md.App.210,240(Md.2003)(citations  omitted).   ( Therefore,anessentialelementofaclaimfortortiousinterferencewitha | prospectivebusinessadvantageisthatthedefendantcommittedtheactwith f! an unlawfulpurposewhichconstitutesmalice.Plaintiffallegesthateitherof P#  twoofDefendantMarsactionssatisfythatelement:(1)receiptofdiscriminatory :% " pricingand(2)aidingandabettingdiscriminatorypricing.Thesetwoallegations $'t"$ arepreciselywhatisallegedinthefirsttwocountsdiscussedsupra.Asalready )^$& statedabove,thisCourtholdsthatDefendantMarscannotbeheldliablefor *H&(  '( ' (' (  eitherofthoseacts.AlthoughaviolationoftheMarylandAntitrustActwould  fulfilltheunlawfulpurpose/withmaliceelement,theCourthasnotfoundsucha  violation.SeeMartellov.BlueCrossandBlueShieldofMaryland,Inc.,etal,143  Md.App.462,478(2002);PurityProds.,Inc.v.TropicanaProds.,Inc.,702F.Supp n  564,575(D.Md.1988).Theviabilityofthetortiousinterferencecountis X  contingentontheviabilityoftheMarylandAntitrustActviolations.SeeMartello, B  143Md.App.at478(dismissingthetortiousinterferencecountbecauseallother ,|  antitrustcountsweredismissed);seealsoFaulknerAdver.Assocs.,Inc.v.Nissan f  MotorCorp.inU.S.A,905F.2d769,775(1990)(citingPurityProducts,Inc.,702F. P Suppat575)(the[maliceelementoftortiousinterference]necessarilyhingeson : whetherdefendantsactionsconstituteaviolationoffederalorstateantitrust $ laws) . Therefore,thecountfortortiousinterferencecannotsurviveamotionto  dismiss.  Inaddition,PlaintiffhasnotallegedthatDefendantMarsactionswere   calculatedtocausedamagetotheplaintiffinherlawfulbusiness.Plaintiff | makesonlyageneralallegationthat supermarketchains...whopaidthese f! lowerpriceshavesolicitedEastsidescustomersandofferedtosellthemPepsi P#  [andCCE]productsatmorefavorablepricesthanEastsideisabletoofferthe :% " samecustomersand [t]hediscriminatorypricesthat[CCE]andPBGhave $'t"$  chargedEastsidedirectlyresultedinthelossofprofitsanddiversionofprofits )^$& andsalesfromEastside.Complaintat37,53&61.Plaintiffdoesnotallege  thatDefendantMarsactionshaveresultedspecificallyininjurytoPlaintiff.   Fortheaforementionedreasons,thisCourtwilldismissPlaintiffsclaimfor  tortiousinterference.    n   X  CountVI:InjunctiveRelief  X   X  Theinjunctivereliefcountcontainsnoindependentallegationthat B  DefendantMarsviolatedanylawsotherthanthoseintheaboveCounts. ,|  Thereforethiscountcannotstandindependentlyoftheremainingclaims.For f  thatreason,theCourtdismissestheclaimforinjunctiverelief. P  :  X  PARTII:CountsAgainstCCEandPBG $ XbXXXbXbXXXb      &  a  CountI:DiscriminatoryPricinginViolationoftheMarylandAntitrustActa tuԌ  Ќ  XbXXXbXbXXXb       PlaintiffcontendsthatbothCCEandPBGviolatedsection11204(a)(3)of  theMarylandAntitrustActwhichprovidesinrelevantpart:'    ?(` ` hp xX(#?Apersonmaynot8.[d]irectlyorindirectlydiscriminate | inpriceamongpurchasersofcommoditiesorservices q  oflikegradeandquality,iftheeffectsofthe f! discriminationmay8[s]ubstantiallylessen [" competition8or[][t]endtoinjure,destroy,orprevent P#  competitionwithanypersonwhograntsorknowingly E$! receivesthebenefitofthediscriminationorwith :% " customersofeitherofthem. XbXXXb  ) "  4     wheXbXh Xb  ݀ /&!#  $'t"$   E.` hp x (#` XxEInadditiontothejurisdictionalrequirement,toestablishaprimafaciecasea  disfavoredpurchasermustpleadandprovethat(1)thesamedefendant  supplier(2)contemporaneouslysold(3)commoditiesoflikegradeandquality  (4)todifferentpurchasersatdifferentprices(5)overtime(6)causinga n  prohibitedcompetitiveinjury(substantiallylesseningcompetitionintheinstant X  actionortendingtoinjure,destroyorpreventcompetition).Lupiav.StellaD'Oro B  BiscuitCo.,586F.2d1163,1170(7thCir.1978),cert.denied,440U.S.982(1979); ,|  seealsoTexaco,Inc.v.Hasbrouck,496U.S.543,556(1990);HooverColorCorp. f  v.BayerCorp.,199F.3d160,164(4thCir.1999);BestBrandsBeverage,Inc.v. P FalstaffBrewingCorp.,842F.2d578,584(2dCir.1987). :  XThedisfavoredpurchaserneednotprovethatthepricediscriminationdid $ infactcauseacompetitiveinjury,butratheronlyestablish areasonable  possibilitythatapricedifferencemayharmcompetition.FallsCityIndustries,  Inc.v.VancoBeverage,Inc.,460U.S.428,43435(1983).Thisharmmay be  inferredfromevidencethatsomepurchasers[overtime]hadtopaytheir | suppliersubstantiallymorefortheirgoodsthantheircompetitorshadtopay. f! Texaco,Inc.v.Hasbrouck,496U.S.543,559(1990)quotingFTCv.MortonSalt P#  Co.,334U.S.37,4647(1948).Thisinferenceofreasonablepossibility issufficient :% " tosupportinjunctiverelief[]andtoauthorizefurtherinquirybythecourtsinto $'t"$ whethertheplaintiffisentitledtotrebledamages8.FallsCityIndus.,460U.S.at )^$& 435citingJ.TruettPaynev.ChryslerMotorsCorp.,451U.S.557,562(1981). *H&( Adisfavoredpurchaserseekingdamagesundersection11209(b)(4)must  alsoprove theextentofhisactualinjuries.Texaco,496U.S.at556,citingJ.  TruettPaynev.ChryslerMotorsCorp.,451U.S.at562;FallsCityIndust.,460U.S.at  435. n   X  CCEandPBGmountatwoprongattackonCountI.First,intheirMotions X  toDismiss, XbXXXb  * "  5     singXbXh Xb  theychallengethesufficiencyofPlaintiffsallegationsastheyrelate B  totheelementsdefinedaboveexceptelement(3)requiringthecommoditiesto ,|  beoflikegradeandquality.Asacorollary,theyalsoarguethatPlaintiffneeds f  topleadsufficientfactstomaintainitsactionfordamagesundersections11 P 204(a)(3)and11209(b)(4)(thatsectionoftheActprovidingfortreble : damages)andhasfailedtodoso. XbXXXb  + "  6     singXbXh Xb  ݀ $  XDefendantsCCEandPBGalsoattackthecompetitiveinjurytheorieson  whichPlaintiffassertsthesection11204(a)(3)violations.Specifically,  DefendantscontendthatthePlaintiff,asawholesalertothevendingoperator  industry,cannotbeincompetition(1)withCCEandPBGwhothePlaintiffhas | allegedoperatetheirownvendingmachines,(2)withCCEandPBGwho f! PlaintiffhasallegedsolddirectlytoEastsidesvendingindustrycustomers,(3)  withgrocerystoreretailersandthehybridclubstoreswhopurportedlyalsosellto  vendingmachineownersandoperators,or(4)withthevendingmachine  ownersandoperatorstowhomPBGsellsdirectly. XbXXXb  , "  7     singXbXh Xb   n  Plaintiffcountersthatitcompeteswiththegrocerystoresandclubstores X  inthattheyallcompeteforthevendingoperatorbusiness.Eastsidefurther B  complainsthatitcompeteswiththevendingserviceproviderstowhomPBG ,|  sellsdirectlybecausePlaintiffscustomerscompetedirectlywiththeseproviders. f  Finally,PlaintiffcontendsthatitdirectlycompeteswithCCEandPBGbecause P thesetwodefendantshavesoldtoPlaintiffsownvendingoperatorcustomers : andbecauseitscustomerscompetewithCCEsandPBGsownvending $ machinesforsalestotheultimateconsumer.  ThisCourtwillfirstaddresstheargumentthatPlaintiffhasfailedto  sufficientlyallegethatEastsidecompetedwithCCEandPBG.Itwillthen  addresswhetherPlaintiffstheoriesthatitcompeteswiththegrocerystorechain | retailers,theclubstoresandthevendingserviceproviderstowhomPBGsells f! directlyarelegallycognizablecompetitiveinjuries.Because,asdiscussedin P#  detailbelow,thisCourtholdsthatbothofthesetheoriesdostatecompetitive :% "  injuries,itwilladdresswhetherPlaintiffhasallegedsufficientfactstowithstand $'t"$ CCEsandPBGsMotionstoDismissPlaintiffssection11204(a)(3)claimasto  boththeories.   X 1.LevelsofCompetitiveInjuries   X Anactionablecompetitiveinjurymayoccuratthree(3)levels:(1)the n  primaryline,(2)thesecondarylineand(3)thetertiaryorcustomerlevel.A X   [p]rimarylineinjury[]occursatthedirectlevelofcompetition[between B  supplierssuchasCCEandPBG][and]customarilyresultswhenaseller[suchas ,|  CCEorPBG]usespredatorypricingpoliciestoenhancehismarketpositionover f  competitors,therebydiminishingthevigorofcompetitionandincreasingmarket P concentration.Eximco,Inc.v.TraneCo.,737F.2d505,515(5thCir.1984);See, : eg.,BrookGroupLtd.V.BrownandWilliamsonTobaccoCorp.,509U.S.209 $ (1993).AnexamplewouldbeifeitherCCEorPBGreduceditssalespricebelow  itscosttoincreaseitsmarketshareovertheothersupplier.SeeLago&Sons  Dairy,Inc.v.H.P.Hood,1994WL484306(D.N.H.1994)(settingforthelementsfor  primarylineviolation)(citationsomitted);SeealsoIndianCoffeeCorp.v.Proctor | &GambleCo.,482F.Supp.1104,1108(W.D.Pa.1980)(includesexamplesand f! explanationsofvariouslevelsofinjury). P#  Asecondarylevelinjuryoccurswhenaseller/supplierdiscriminatesin :% " pricebetweentwodifferentbuyers,i.e.thefavoredanddisfavoredbuyer. $'t"$  Secondarylineinjurycustomarilyresultswhenalargerpurchaserusesitsvast )^$& purchasingpowertoobtainlowpricesfromthemanufacturersordistributors *H&( whoseproductsitstocks,therebyenablingittoundersellcompetitors.Eximco,  Inc.,737F.2dat515;SeealsoIndianCoffeeCorp,482F.Suppat108.Thisinjury,  asdiscussedfurtherbelow,isthecruxofanycompetitiveinjuryinthiscase.  Finally,thereisatertiaryorcustomer!levelinjury.Itoccurswhen the n  sellerspricediscriminationharmscompetitionbetweenthecustomersofthe X  favoredanddisfavoredpurchaserseventhoughthefavoredpurchasersand B  disfavoredpurchasersdonotcompetedirectly.HygradeMilk&CreamCo., ,|  Inc.v.TropicanaProds.,Inc.,1996WL257581Fn.6(S.D.N.Y.)citingFallsCity f  Indus.V.VancoBeverage,Inc.,460U.S.428,436(1983).Anexampleofthis P injuryissetforthinFallsCity.InFallsCitytheSupremeCourtfoundacompetitive : injurywhenasupplier/manufacturersoldtotwononcompetingwholesalers $ operatinginwhollydistinctmarketsatdifferentpricesbecausetheirretail   customerswereinactualcompetitionwithinaunifiedmarketregion.   XXXbXXXbXbXXXb     X&     2.EastsidesProposedCompetitionwithCCEandPBG urEԌ  ЌXbXXXbXbXXXb X  PlaintiffassertsthatitcompetesdirectlywithCCEandPBGbecauseCCE  andPBG havesoldEastsidescustomersthesameproducts[theyhavesold  Eastside]atlowerprices.Complaintat34&50.ThisCourtneednotdecide n  whetherthistheorywouldsustainoneoftheoutlinedabovecompetitiveinjuries X  becauseitamountstonomorethanaconclusorystatement.Itiscompletely B  devoidofanysupportingfacts.Itfailstoidentifywithanyparticularitythe ,|  customerstowhomthePlaintiffrefers,whatpricesPlaintiffand/orthePlaintiffs f  customerspaidfortheproductsandthetimeframeofthesepurported P transactions.Inotherwords,theallegationsfallwellshortofpleadingthe : necessaryelementsofasection11204(a)(3)violation.'k $  XXXbXXXbXbXXXb  a  PlaintiffsallegationthatitcompeteswithPBGandCCEbecausePBG  andCCEoperatetheirownvendingmachines,therebycompetingwith  PlaintiffsvendingmachinecustomersdirectlyandPlaintiffindirectly,alsofails.  Nocompetitiveinjuryexistswhenaseller/suppliersellsdirectlytotheultimate | useratalowerpricethanitsellstowholesalersorretailers.SeeOByrnev. f! CheckerOilCo.,727F.2d159,165(7thCir.1984);Secatores,Inc.v.Esso P#  StandardOilCo.,1717F.Supp665(D.Mass.1959);SanoPetroleumCorp.v. :% " AmericanOilCo.,187F.Supp345(E.D.N.Y.1960).a݌ $'t"$ ЌXbXXXbXbXXXb XX  ݀Thisconclusionispremisedonthesimplelogicthattheultimateconsumer )^$& isnotincompetitionwithanyonefortheresaleoftheproduct,and,therefore, *H&( theirreceiptoffavorablepricingcannotharmcompetition.Obyrne,727F.2d  165.Moreover,ifasuppliercanselltoaconsumeratthesamepriceitsellsto  thewholesalerorretailer,thenthesuppliercannotharmcompetitionfurtherby  sellingtotheconsumeratalowerprice.Secatores,Inc.,1717F.Supp.at667; n  SanoPetroleumCorp.,187F.Supp.at354.Basiceconomicsdictatesthatthe X  reseller,beitwholesalerorretailer,mustappendsomemargintoitspurchase B  pricewhenitresellsit;otherwiseitwouldbesellingtheproductatalossgiven ,|  overhead.Id.Thus,theresellercannotrealisticallycompetewiththesupplier f  becausethemanufacturewillalwayshaveapriceadvantage.Id. P  XXXbXXXbXbXXXb    Evenifsuchatheorydidconstituteacompetitiveinjury,Plaintiffhaspled : nounderlyingfactstosupportthisclaim.Ithasnotidentifiedanyprice $ discrepancy,thecustomerswhopurportedlycompetedirectlywithCCEand  PBG,therelevanttimeline,etc.Thus,Plaintiffhasnotpledacognizable  competitiveinjurybasedonthistheory.e݌  ЌXbXXXbXbXXXb XX   XXXbXXXbXbXXXb     X&    3.TheoriesofEastsidesCompetitionwithGroceryStoreChainRetailersandx ur4Ԍ | ЌXbXXXbXbXXXb X   XXXbXXXbXbXXXb     X  ݀ClubStores= urԌ q  ЌXbXXXbXbXXXb X  '|Z f! Ontheotherhand,assumingthesufficiencyoftheallegations,Plaintiffs [" theories(1)thatitcompeteswiththeretailgrocerystorechainsandclubstores E$! forvendingmachineoperatorsand(2)thatitcompeteswiththevending /&!# serviceproviderstowhomPBGsellsdirectlycanestablishasecondarylineinjury. (i#% Toestablishasecondarylineinjurythedisfavoredpurchasermustestablishthat *S%' itwas inactualcompetitionwiththefavoredpurchaserasofthetimeofthe +=') pricedifferential.BestBrandsBeverage,Inc.v.FalstaffBrewingCo.,842F.2d  578,584(2ndCir.1987).  Theplaintiffcansatisfythiscompetitivenexusbyshowingthat the  favoredanddisfavoredpurchaserscompetedatthesamefunctionallevel,i.e. n  allwholesalersorallretailers,andwithinthesamegeographicalmarket.Id.at X  585.However,thisisnotaprerequisitebecausetheSupremeCourthas B  categoricallyrejectedanycontentionthatthefavoredanddisfavored ,|  purchasersmustbeallwholesalersorretailers.SeeFederalTradeCommnv. f  MortonSaltCo.,334U.S.37,55(1948)(holdingthatavolumediscountgivenby P amanufacturer/suppliertolargequalifyingretailersbutnottosmaller : wholesalerswhoseretailcustomerscompetedwiththefavoredretailersstateda $ competitiveinjuryunderthefederalcounterpartof11204(a)(3));seealso  Texaco,Inc.v.Hasbrouck,496U.S.543,567(1990)(holdingtheconverseof  MortonSaltwherebythewholesalersreceivedthediscount).SeealsoHygrade  Milk&CreamCo.,Inc,1996WL257581*10.(S.D.N.Y.).Rathertheemphasisison | thepurchasers actualpositioninthedistributivechainand,moreimportantly, f! whetherthepricediscriminationmayhaveharmedcompetition,notonthe P#  labelofwholesalerorretailer.FederalTradeCommnv.FredMeyer,390U.S. :% " 341,349n.9(1967);seealsoTexaco,Inc.v.Hasbrouck,496U.S.543,567(1990) $'t"$ (J.Scalia,concurring)( [T]heActprohibitsdifferentialsinthepricesofferedto )^$& wholesalersandretailers8.[I]fthatfactorcouldmakeanydifference,itwould *H&( bear8uponwhetheritaffectedcompetition).Todetermineapurchasers  positionrequires carefulanalysisofeachpartyscustomers.M.C.Mfg.Co.v.  TexasFoundries,Inc.,517F.2d1059,1065(1975).Thequestionultimatelyasks  whetherthefavoredanddisfavoredpurchaserscompetedforthesamedollar. n  Id. X   XXXbXXXbXbXXXb    PlaintiffsfirsttheoryofcompetitiveinjuryinthiscaseisthatPBGandCCE B  soldthesameproductstheysoldtoEastsidetogrocerystorechainsandclub ,|  storesatlowerprices.Thesefavoredpurchasersthenresoldtheproductsto f  vendingmachineownersandoperators,thesamecustomerstowhomthe P disfavoredpurchaserEastsidesoldthesameproducts.Inotherwords,boththe : Plaintiffandfavoredgrocerystorechainsandclubstorescompetedas $ functionalwholesalersforthesamedollar:thatofthevendingmachineowners  andoperators.Thisisaviableallegationofsecondarylineinjurytocompetition.B݌  ЌXbXXXbXbXXXb XX   XXXbXXXbXbXXXb    Generally,consumersconstitutethemajorityofaretailerscustomerbase.  However,theyarenotnecessarilytheretailersexclusivecustomers.AsPlaintiff | hasallegedinitsComplaint,retailersareopentothegeneralpublicand f! nothingprecludesvendingmachineownersandoperatorsfromshoppingata P#  retailer.Thesamecanbesaidabouttheclubstores.Infact,itmaybeeven :% " morelikelythatvendingmachineownersandoperatorsshopattheclubstores $'t"$ thanattheretailgrocerystorechainsastheclubstoresmarketmoredirectlyto )^$& businessoperators.Therefore,thisCourtholdsthatthistheoryofcompetitive *H&( injury,ifproven,wouldbesufficienttoconstituteaviolationofsection   11  204(a)(3)oftheAct.k݌  ЌXbXXXbXbXXXb XX   XXXbXXXbXbXXXb     ted  Plaintiffssecondtheory,thatitcompeteswiththevendingservice  providerstowhomPBGallegedlysoldidenticalproductatalowerprice, n  likewiseallegesaviableclaim.Thevendingserviceprovidersareessentially X   retailerswhovendtheirproductstotheultimateconsumer.Therefore,the B  favoreddirectbuy retailersandthe retailerswhopurchasethroughthe ,|  intermediaryPlaintiffcompeteforthesameconsumerdollar.q݌ f  ЌXbXXXbXbXXXb XX   XXXbXXXbXbXXXb    PBGreliesonthelogicsetforthinbothSecatores,Inc.v.EssoStandardOil P Co.,1717F.Supp665(D.Mass.1959)andSanoPetroleumCorp.v.AmericanOil : Co.,187F.Supp345(E.D.N.Y.1960).InSecatoresthecourtheldthatasupplier $ couldselldirectlytotheconsumeratapricebelowwhichitsoldthesametoa  retailer.Thecourtreasonedthat [i]f[theretailer]couldnotcompetewith[the  supplier]for[theconsumerpurchaser]whenthereisnopricedifferential,itisnot  harmedbyanyfurtherreductionwhich[thesupplier]maymakeinthepriceit | chargestothem.Secatores,Inc.,1717F.Suppat667.Becausetheretailer f! couldnotcompetewiththepriceofferedbythesupplier,evenifequal,the P#  pricediscriminationitselfcouldnotadverselyeffectcompetitionbetweenitand :% " thesupplier.InSano,adifferentcourtappliedthisrationaletoasituationin $'t"$ whichasuppliersoldproducttoaconsumerforlessthanitsoldthesametoa )^$& wholesalerandheldthatsuchatheorycouldnotsupportacompetitiveinjury. *H&( SanoPetroleumCorp.,187F.Supp.at354.Insoholdingitstated: Thegistof  Secatoresisthatifequalitycannothelp,discriminationcannotinjure.Id.݌  ЌXbXXXbXbXXXb XX  ThisCourtdeclinestoextendthelogicofthesedecisionstothefactsof  theinstantcase.InSanoandSecatoresthefavoredbuyersweretheultimate n  consumerswhereasheretheallegedfavoredbuyerswereretailers.Here,the X  purportedfavoredpurchaserswereretailerswhoresoldtheproductand B  therefore,couldbeincompetitionwithEastsidefortheultimateconsumer ,|  dollar.Aconsumerdoesnotcompetewitharetailerorwholesalerfortheresell f  ofaproduct. P  Asupplierssaletoitsretaileratapricelowerthanthatcharged : wholesalerswhosecustomerscompetewiththefavoredretailermayviolate $ thefederalcounterpartof11204(a)(3).GuyottCo.v.Texaco,Inc.,261F.  Supp.942,950(D.Conn.1966)citingF.T.C.v.MortonSaltCo.,334U.S.37(1948);  J.T.Jonesv.MetzgerDairies,Inc.,334F.2d919(5thCir.1964),cert.denied,379  U.S.965(1965)(dictum);Krugv.IntlTel.&Tel.Corp.,142F.Supp.230(D.N.J. | 1956)(othercitationsomitted);seealsoTexacoInc.v.Habrouck,496U.S.543, f! 577(1990)(J.Scalia,concurring)( Aslongagoas[MortonSalt]weheldthatthe P#  Actprohibitsdifferentialsinthepricesofferedtowholesalersandretailers.)In :% " fact oneofthewellknownpurposesoftheRobinsonPatmanamendmentto $'t"$ theClaytonActwastoprotectindependentwholesalersfromdiscriminatory )^$& concessionsgivenbymanufacturerstoretailerswhosesizeandvolumeofsales *H&( leadtoabypassingofthewholesalingfunction.Krug,142F.Supp.at235.The  injurytocompetitionundersuchatheoryoccursbetweenthewholesalersretail  customersandthefavoreddirectbuyretailers.Ifthewholesalermustpaymore  fortheproductthanthefavoredretailer,itcertainlyfollowsthattheircustomers n  willaswell.Ifthewholesalerscustomersareunabletocompete,thewholesaler X  inturnwillsustaininjuryintheformoflostsalesandprofits. B   XXXbXXXbXbXXXb    ThisisthesamefactualscenarioPlaintiffpurportstoallegeinparagraph ,|  55oftheComplaint.ItcomplainsthatPBGchargesEastsidemoreforthesame f  productthanitchargesvendingserviceproviderstowhomitsellsdirectly.It P furtherallegesthatthisdiscriminatorypricingaffects Eastsidescustomersability : tocompete.AsPlaintiffhasallegedthatitsellsexclusivelytovendingoperator $ andowners,onecaninferthatitscustomerscompetewiththedirectbuy  vendingserviceproviders.Asstatedpreviously,bothPlaintiffsandPBGs  vendingcustomersfunctionasretailersthroughtheirvendingmachines.Thus,if  adequatelyalleged,PlaintiffstheorythatPBGsoldthesameproducttoa |  retaileratapricelowerthantothePlaintiffwholesaler,cansupportthe f! competitiveinjuryelementundersection11204(a)(3)."݌ P#  ЌXbXXXbXbXXXb XX   XXXbXXXbXbXXXb     X 4.SufficiencyofPlaintiffsAllegationstoSupportaSecondLineInjury  ݌ :% " ЌXbXXXbXbXXXb X  ThisCourtnowturnstothesufficiencyofthePlaintiffsallegationstoplead $'t"$ thesetwosecondarylineviolationsofsection11204(a)(3)oftheAct.To )^$& withstandamotiontodismissasection11204(a)(3)claim,theplaintiffmust *H&( pleadmorethanconclusoryallegations:thecomplaint mustallegefactsthatif  provenwouldestablisheachelementoftheclaim.OremanSales,Inc.v.  MatsushitaElec.Corp.ofAmerica,768F.Supp.1174,1184(E.D.La.1991)  (emphasisinoriginalandcitationsomitted).However,thisCourtmustbe n  mindfulthat dismissalspriortogivingtheplaintiffampletimefordiscovery X  shouldbegrantedverysparinglyinanantitrustcasebecause theproofis B  largelyinthehandsoftheallegedconspirators.HospitalBldg.Co.v.Trusteesof ,|  RexHospital,425U.S.738,746(1976)(internalquotationmarksandcitations f  omitted). XbXXXb  - "  8     dmenXbXh Xb  󀀀 P ItisthroughthislensthattheCourtwilladdressthesufficiencyofPlaintiffs : allegationsinsupportofthefollowingrequiredelementsexcept(3):(1)the $ samedefendantsupplier(2)contemporaneouslysold(3)commoditiesoflike  gradeandquality(4)todifferentpurchasersatdifferentprices(5)overtime(6)  causingaprohibitedcompetitiveinjury(substantiallylesseningcompetitionin  theinstantactionortendingtoinjure,destroyorpreventcompetition).The | competitiveinjuryrequirementinasecondlineinjuryactioncanbesatisfiedby f! showingthatthefavoredanddisfavoredpurchaserswerecompetitorsas P#   discussedabove. :% " PlaintiffhasfailedtoallegesufficientfactstosupportitstheorythatPBG   solddirectlytovendingserviceprovidersandthattheseproviderscompeted  withPlaintiffscustomers.ItonlyallegesthatPBGis presentlychargingEastside  morefortheproduct(s)withoutanyreferencetotimeframe,and,thus,failsto n  meetthe overtimerequirement.Italsofailstoidentifyanyoftheimpacted X  customersandwhatinjurytheyhavesustainedasaresultofthecompetition. B  Accordingly,Plaintiffhasfailedtosufficientlypleadthistheoryofcompetitive ,|  injury. f  ThisCourtnowturnstowhetherPlaintiffhaspledsufficientfactstosupport P theelementsofitstheorypremisedoncompetitionwiththeretailgrocerystores : andtheclubstoresforthevendingownerandoperatorbusiness.ThisCourtwill $ firstaddresselements(1),(2),(4)and(5)astheyareallrelated.Toestablish  theseelementsPlaintiffpledthat onSeptember5,2001[CCE]chargedEastside  $6.50percaseofCokebrandproductsin12ouncecansandthatonthesame  dayanidentifiedgrocerystorechain offeredtothegeneralpublic8casesof | ClassicCoke[aCokebrandproduct] XbXXXb  . "  9     BdmenXbXh Xb  in12ouncecansfor$5.00percase. f! Complaintat26.TheComplaintcontainsadditionalallegationsofthisnature P#  astobothCCEandPBG.SeeComplaintat2426,32,4245.Withregardto :% " element(4)requiringasaletotwodifferentpurchasers,Plaintiffcontendsthat $'t"$ becausetheseotherpurchasersofferedtosellaproductatapricebelow  whichPlaintiffcouldpurchasethesame,theymusthavealsopurchasedthe  productatalowerprice.Thisisaviableargumentandareasonableinference.  Withoutthebenefitofdiscovery,itwouldbedifficult,ifnotimpossible,forthe n  Plaintifftoknowtheexactpricesthesepurchaserspaidfortheproducts.Thus, X  Plaintiffemployedthebestsubstituteforthepurchaseprice:thesalesprice.Of B  course,discoverymayestablishthatindeedthesegrocerystorechainsandclub ,|  storesdidselltheproductsatapricebelowtheirpurchasepriceas,forinstance, f  alossleader.However,thisCourtbelievesPlaintiffhaspledsufficientunderlying P factstosatisfyelement(4). : Thisrepresentativeallegationisalsosufficienttosatisfyelement(2)that $ thesalesbecontemporaneous.Again,withoutaninvoiceordiscoveryitis  difficultforPlaintifftomeetitsburdentopleadfactsregardingwhentheretail  grocerystorechainsandclubstorespurchasedthesecommodities.So,Plaintiff  allegedthenextbestalternative:itciteditscompetitorscontemporaneous | salesprice,i.e.acompetitorssalespricewithinclosetemporalproximityto f! Plaintiffspurchaseprice. P#  TheComplaintalsosatisfieselement(5)thatthesalesoccurovertimeasit :% " includesatleastnine(9)factuallysimilarallegationsfromJanuary,2001through $'t"$ December,2003.SeeComplaintat2426,32,4245.Theyallallegean )^$& Eastsidepurchasepricehigherthanacompetitorscontemporaneoussales *H&( price.Atleastnine(9)incidentsspanningthree(3)yearsismorethanisolated  andissufficienttosustainanallegationofpricediscriminationovertime.  Next,CCEandPBGchallengethesufficiencyofelement(1).Theyargue  thatthesesalesprice/purchasepriceallegationsfailtoidentifythemasthe n  seller/supplierwhoactuallysoldtheproducttothepurportedlyfavoredgrocery X  storeretailersandclubstoresbecausetheplaintiffonlyallegedthesalesprice B  andnotthepurchaseprice.However,theallegationsclearlystatethatCCEor ,|  PBG chargedEastsidemoreforthesebeveragesthanitchargedthe f  identifiedgrocerystoreretailerorclubstore.SeeComplaintat2426,32,42 P 45.Whencoupledwiththeallegationsthatthegrocerystoreorclubstore : offeredtheproductforsale,itisquitereasonabletoinferthatCCEorPBG, $ dependingontheallegation,madetheinitialsaletotheresellinggrocerystore  orclubstore.Moreover,paragraph4oftheComplaintidentifiesCCEasthe   exclusiveproducer,bottler,andcannerofCocaColasoftdrinksintheDistrict  ofColumbia,mostofthestateofMaryland,mostoftheCommonwealthof | Virginia,andinmuchofthemidAtlanticregionoftheUnitedStates.Paragraph f! 5statesthat PBGhastheexclusiverighttomanufacturer,sell,anddistribute P#  PepsibeveragesintheMidAtlanticregionoftheUnitedStates.Assumingthe :% " truthoftheseallegationsthatCCEandPBGweretheexclusivesellersoftheir $'t"$ respectiveproductsintherelevantmarket(wherethefavoredpurchasers )^$& operated),makesitlikelythattheysoldtheproductstotheallegedlyfavored *H&( groceryretailersandclubstores.Thus,thisCourtissatisfiedthatPlaintiffhas  allegedsufficientfactstosupportelement(1)thatthetwosalesbefromthe  sameseller/supplier.  DiscoverymayrevealthatsomeoftheinferencesuponwhichPlaintiff n  reliestosupporttheseallegationscannotbeborneout.However,atthisstage X  oflitigationonecannaturallyinferfromtheseallegationsthatCCEandPBG B  madecontemporaneoussalesovertimetotheidentifiedgrocerystorechains ,|  andclubstoresatpricesbelowwhichitsoldthesametoEastside. f  CCEandPBGfurtherchallengethesufficiencyofPlaintiffsallegations P withrespecttoelement(6),competitiveinjury.Specificallytheycontendthat : theComplaintfailstoallegethatPlaintiffcompetedwiththeidentifiedgrocery $ storeretailersandclubstores.ThisCourtbelievesPlaintiffhasalsopledsufficient  factstosupportitstheorythatPlaintiffcompetedwiththeidentifiedgrocery  storechainsandclubstoresforthevendingmachineownerandoperator  business.Plaintiffhasallegedthattheidentifiedgrocerystorechainsandclub | storesofferedthesameproductsPlaintiffpurchasedfromCCEandPBG tothe f! generalpublic.Complaintat2426,32,4245.Asmembersofthegeneral P#  public,vendingmachineownersandoperatorscanpurchasefromthesestores. :% " Manyvariablesfactorintoonesdecisionastowheretopurchaseaproduct, $'t"$ butpriceisasignificantone.Asignificantpricedifferentialcanlurelongterm )^$& customersawayfromawholesalerwhomaybemoreconvenient.Thus,itis *H&( conceivablethatEastsidedidcompetewiththeretailgrocerychainsandclub  storesforthevendingoperatorbusiness.  Plaintiffalsodirectlyallegesthat clubstores[and]supermarketchainsare  directcompetitorsofEastsidewho havesolicitedEastsidescustomersand n  offeredtosellthem[therespectiveproducts]atmorefavorableprices8. X  Complaintat37,38,53&54.AsPlaintiffsoldexclusivelytothevending B  operatorindustry,onemustinferthatbylabelingthegrocerystorechainsand ,|  clubstoresas directcompetitors,Plaintiffallegedthatthey,too,soldtothe f  vendingindustry.Moreover,accordingtotheComplaint,theonlycustomers P thesepurportedfavoredpurchaserscouldsolicitfromEastsidewouldbe : vendingmachineownersandoperators.Therefore,theseallegationsare $ sufficienttoestablishPlaintiffsclaimforasecondarylinecompetitiveinjury.  Finally,CCEandPBGassertthatPlaintiffmustalsopleadwhatisknownas  anantitrustinjurytosustainanactionfordamagesundersection11109(b)(4).  AnantitrustinjuryisonetothePlaintiffsbusinessorpropertythattheantitrust |  lawswereintendedtopreventsuchaslostcustomersorprofits,resultingfrom f! Defendantsviolationoftheantitrustlaws(suchasdiscriminatorypricing). P#  BrunswickCorp.v.PuebloBowlOMat,Inc.,429U.S.477,489(1977);J.Truett :% " Payne,451U.S.at564n.4;seealso11209(b)(2)oftheAct(authorizingprivate $'t"$ rightsofactiontothosewhohavesustainedaninjurytotheir businessor )^$& property8byaviolationof112048.). *H&( However,aprimafaciecaseforaviolationofsection11204(a)(3)does  notrequirethePlaintifftoestablishanantitrustinjuryand issufficientto8  authorizefurtherinquirybythecourtsintowhethertheplaintiffisentitledto  trebledamages8.FallsCityInd.,460U.S.at435citingJ.TruettPaynev.Chrysler n  MotorsCorp.,451U.S.557,562.But,theplaintiffmustprove theextentofhis X  actualinjuriestorecovertrebledamagesundersection11204(a)(3).Texaco, B  496U.S.at556citingJ.TruettPaynev.ChryslerMotorsCorp.,451U.S.557,562; ,|  FallsCity,460U.S.at435. f  Plaintiffhas,ataminimum,allegedsufficientfactstowarrantdiscovery P andfurtherinquiryastotheextentofdamagesPlaintiffmayhavesustainedasa : resultoftheallegedsecondarylineviolationbyCCEandPBG.Paragraph17of $ theComplaintstatesthatasaresultofCCEsandPBGsdiscriminatorypricing,  discussedabove, Eastsidehasbeenforcedtoresellthedefendantsproducts  atbelowEastsidescost,atcost,oratasubstantiallyreducedprice.Thisis  obviouslyanallegationofdiminishedprofits.Inparagraph32,Plaintiff | substantiatedthisclaimwithrespecttoCCEwhenitallegedthatthe f! discriminatorypricingforcedittosellCCEproductpurchasedat$18.48percase P#  for$14.95percase.Inparagraph53,Plaintiffallegedthatasaresultofthe :% " discriminatorypricing, PBGcustomershavesoldEastsidescustomersPepsi $'t"$ productsatlowerpricesthanEastsidepaysPBGforthosesameproductsandis )^$& abletoofferitscustomerswithoutsubstantiallyreducingitsprofit.Thisisaclaim *H&( oflostcustomersordivertedsales.Unlikeinthecaseoflostprofits,wherethe  Plaintiffcanconsultitsownrecordsforsubstantiation,Plaintiffmaynothave  clearevidencetopleadthisallegationindetail.Plaintiffmaynotknowatthis  stageoflitigationhowmanycustomerssimplypurchasedfromthepurported n  favoredpurchasersandwhatpricetheymayhavepaidfortheproduct.The X  discoveryprocesswillnotonlygivePlaintifftheproperincentivetosubstantiate B  theseclaimsifpossible,butitwillalsogiveDefendantsanopportunitytoprobe ,|  furthertheseallegeddamages.ShouldEastsidenotbeabletoprovide f  sufficientevidencetosupportitsclaimfordamages,CCEandPBGcanthenfile P theappropriatemotions.However,Plaintiffhassufficientlypleddamagesto : warrantdiscovery.Resolutionofdamagesisbestaddressedafterdiscovery. $ Accordingly,Plaintiffhasallegedsufficientfactstosupportalltherequired  elementsforitssection11204(a)(3)claim,includingtrebledamagesunder  section11204(b)(4).Thus,DefendantsCCEsandPBGsMotionstoDismiss  CountIaredeniedtotheextentthatPlaintiffhasallegedthatCCEandPBG | soldtheirrespectiveproductstogrocerystorechainsandclubstoresataprice f! belowwhichitsoldthesametoEastsideandthatthesefavoredpurchasers P#  competedwithEastsideforthevendingoperatorbusiness. :% "   $'t"$ XbXXXbXbXXXb     X  &   8M  CountIV:RuleofReasonViolation8MM tMԌ  ЌXbXXXbXbXXXb       CountIVoftheComplaintallegesthatCCEsandPBGs conducthas  constitutedanunreasonablerestraintoftrade8.Complaintat77.Asthe  Complaintfailedtoidentifyanystatutoryauthorityforsuchacomplaint,this n  CourtwillassumethatPlaintiffintendedtoallegeaviolationofsection' M X  11204(a)(1)oftheMarylandAntitrustAct,Md.CodeAnn.,Com.Law11 B  204(a)(1).ThissectionoftheActmakesitillegalforaperson bycontract, ,|  combination,orconspiracywithoneormoreotherpersons,[to]unreasonably f  restraintradeorcommerce.Again,consideringtherelativelyfewcases P interpretingtheActanditspurpose tocomplementthebodyofthefederal : lawgoverningrestraintsoftrade,thisCourtwilllookforguidancefromfederal $ courtinterpretationsofsection11204(a)(1)sfederalanalog,section1ofthe  ShermanAntitrustAct,15U.S.C.1;SeeNaturalDesign,Inc.v.RouseCo.,302  Md.47,53(1984).    Asection11204(a)(1)violationconsistsoftwoelements: (1)Theremust | beatleasttwopersonsactinginconcert,and(2)therestraintcomplainedof f! mustconstituteanunreasonablerestrainton[]tradeorcommerce.Estate P#  Constr.Co.v.Miller&SmithHoldingCo.,Inc.,14F.3d213,220(4thCir.1994) :% " (citationsomitted).Apracticecanbeanunreasonablerestraintoftradein $'t"$ oneoftwoways:itcanbeunreasonableperse,oritcanbedeemed )^$& unreasonableundera ruleofreasonanalysis.NaturalDesign,Inc.,302Md.at *H&( 667.Certainpractices,suchaspricefixing,resalepricemaintenance,group  boycottsandhorizontaldivisionsofmarkets,arepresumedunreasonableperse   becauseoftheirperniciouseffectoncompetitionandlackofanyredeeming  virtue8.Id.(citationsandinternalquotationsomitted);SeealsoUnitedStates n  v.SoconyVacuumOilCo.,310U.S.150(1940);Dr.MilesMed.Co.v.JohnD.Park X  &SonsCo.,220U.S.373(1911);KlorsInc.v.BroadwatHaleStores,Inc.,339U.S. B  207(1959);TimkenRollerBearingCo.v.UnitedStates,341U.S.593(1951). ,|    Otherpracticesmaybefoundunreasonableunderthe ruleofreason f  analysiswhich requiresaweighingofallthecircumstancesofacasein P decidingwhetherarestrictivepracticeshouldbeprohibitedasimposingan : unreasonablerestraintoncompetition.Id.(citationsandinternalquotation $ marksomitted). Todeterminethatquestionthecourtmustordinarilyconsider  thefactspeculiartothebusinesstowhichtherestraintisapplied;itscondition  beforeandaftertherestraintwasimposed;thenatureoftherestraintandits  effect,actualorprobable.Id.(citationsandinternalquotationmarksomitted). |  [T]hereasonablenessoftherestraintisevaluatedbasedonitsimpacton f! competitionasawholewithintherelevantmarket.Oksanonv.PageMeml P#  Hosp.,945F.2d696,708(4thCir.1991),cert.denied,502U.S.1074(1992). :% "  XThepracticeofwhichPlaintiffcomplainsisknownasanonpricevertical $'t"$ restraint. XbXXXb  / "  10     ^ XbXh Xb  Suchrestraintsarenotunreasonableperse,butaretobeassessed )^$& undera ruleofreasonanalysis.NaturalDesignInc.,302Md.at5759;  ContinentalT.V.,Inc.v.GTESylvaniaInc.,433U.S.36(1977).Insupportofthis  violationPlaintiffallegesthat Foranumberofyears,[CCE]andPBGhave  forcedEastsidetoagreenottosellanyproductssoldby[CCE]andPBGtoany n  ofEastsidesnonvendingowner/operatorcustomers.Complaintat19.It X  furthercomplainsthathadCCEandPBG notforcedEastsidenottosellanyof B  theirproductstothesecustomers,Eastsidewouldhaveattemptedtosellto ,|  thesecustomers,andwouldhavechargedthemlowerpricesandprovided f  betterservicethantheserviceprovidedby[CCE]andPBG.Complaintat20. P Asathresholdmatter,thesefacts,eveniftrue,wouldnotsupportan : unreasonablerestraintoftrade.Plaintiffstheoryofinjurytocompetitionis $ economicallyimplausible.EvenifCCEandPBGdidnot forcePlaintiffto  agreenottoselltononvendingserviceindustrycustomers,thereisabsolutely  noreasontobelievethatthoseforbiddencustomerswouldpurchasefrom  Eastside.Infact,commonsenseandreasonwoulddictatethattheforbidden | customerswouldcontinuetopurchasefromCCEandPBGasneithersupplieris f! obligatedtosellproducttoawholesaleratapricelowerthanitsellsconsumers P#  orretailerstoensurethewholesalersprofitmargin.SeeKleinv.LionelCorp.,138 :% " F.Supp.560(D.C.Del.1956)(holdingthatRobinsonPatmanActdoesnot $'t"$ requiresupplierstosellproducttowholesalersatpricebelowthatsoldtolarge )^$& retailerssothatwholesalerssmallerretailcustomerscancompetewithlarge  directbuyretailers);Accord,SecatoresInc.,171F.Supp.at667(Asupplieris   undernoobligationtosellto[awholesalers]atalowerpricethanitcharges  [othercustomers]whobuydirectlyfromitinordertoenable[thewholesaler]to n  competewithitforthebusinessofthesecustomers.)Thus,evenifCCEand X  PBGwouldchargeboththeforbiddencustomersthesamepricetheycharged B  Plaintiff,CCEandPBGwouldalwayshaveapriceadvantage.SeeSecatores ,|  Inc.,171F.Supp.at667(Evenifsupplierchargedretailerthesamepriceitsold f  toconsumer,plaintiffretailer couldnotcompetewith[supplier]forthe[direct P buyconsumerbusiness]foritwouldasamatterofpracticaleconomicshaveto : chargethe[consumers]morethanitpaidthe[supplier]8tocoveritsexpenses $ ofoperation,tosaynothingofamakingaprofitonthetransaction.)Therefore,  ultimatelythisnonpriceverticalrestraintwouldnotevenaffectcompetitionas  thecustomerswouldcontinuetopurchasefromCCEandPBG.    XXXbXXXbXbXXXb   hm  Moreover,Plaintiffhasfailedtoadequatelypleadtheantitrustinjury,an | unreasonablerestraintontradeorcommerce. [T]heantitrustlawswere f! enactedtoprotectcompetition,notcompetitors.AtlanticRichfieldCo.v. P#  U.S.A.PetroleumCo.,495U.S.328,(1990)(citationsandinternalquotationmarks :% " omitted)(emphasisinoriginal).Thus,simplypleadinganeconomicinjuryto $'t"$ oneselforconclusoryallegationsisinsufficient.Oksanon,945F.2dat709. )^$& Rather,aplaintiffmustpleadandprove whatmarkethecontendswas *H&( restrained[,][]thatthedefendantsplayedasignificantroleintherelevant  market,theconditionofthemarketbeforeandaftertherestrictionwas  imposedandtheactualorprobableeffectoftherestraintimposed.Id.;Natural  Design,Inc.,302Md.at667. hmm݌ n  ЌXbXXXbXbXXXb XX    XXXbXXXbXbXXXb   r  Intheinstantcase,Plaintiffhasfailedtoidentifyanyoftheabove;ithas X  onlyaverredthatitwouldhavechargedcustomerslowerpricesandprovided B  betterservice.AtbestthisisanallegationthatthePlaintiffhassustainedsome ,|  economicinjurytoitselffromwhichonecouldpossiblyinferthattheeffectwas f  toincreasetheoverallsalepriceoftheproduct.However,Plaintifffailsto P identifytherelevantmarket.Itdoesnotstatetowhattypeofcustomersitwould : havesoldbutfortherestriction.NordoesitidentifyCCEsorPBGsmarket $ power.Finally,itmakesnoreferencetotheconditionofthemarketbeforeand  aftertherestrictionwasimposed.Again,itbearsreiterationthatthefocusofthe  antitrustlawsisontheeffectofcompetitioninthemarketasawhole,notthe  individualcompetitors.Plaintiffsallegationsfallfarshortofpleadinganyeffect | onthemarketasawhole. r\s݌ f! ЌXbXXXbXbXXXb XX    XXXbXXXbXbXXXb   x  Finally, inordertoadequatelyallegeanantitrustconspiracy,thepleader P#  mustprovide,wheneverpossible,somedetailsofthetime,placeandalleged :% " effectoftheconspiracy8. XbXXXb  0 "  11     8z XbXh Xb  hXb,XlXXbXXXlEstateConstr.Co.v.Miller&SmithHolding $'t"$ Company,Inc.,14F.3d213,221(4thCir.1994).Plaintiffcouldprovide )^$& approximatedatesonwhichCCEandPBG forcedittoagreetorestrictits  resalemarket,themannerinwhichtheydidso,thepartiesandrepresentatives  involvedinanydiscussionsthatconstitutetheagreementorconspiracy,andthe  locationsofanyofthesediscussions.Plaintiffcouldalsoprovidesomedetailson n  how,whenandwhereCCEandPBG forcedPlaintifftoagreetorestrictits X  resalemarket.Inshort,Plaintiffshouldhave,andcouldhave,pledmoreto B  sustaintheconspiracyelement. x3y݌ ,|  ЌXbXXXbXbXXXb XX  Fortheaforementionedreasons,thisCourtgrantsbothCCEsandPBGs f  MotionstoDismissCountIV. P  XXbXXXbXbXXXb       & :   CountV:TortiousInterferencewithProspectiveBusinessAdvantage dЋԌ $ ЌXbXXXbXbXXXb   X  AsstatedinPartI,aplaintiffmustallegethefollowingelementstosustain  anactionfortortiousinterferencewithaprospectivebusinessadvantageunder  Marylandlaw:(1)intentionalandwillfulacts;(2)calculatedtocausedamage  totheplaintiffinherlawfulbusiness;(3)donewiththeunlawfulpurposetocause | suchdamageandloss,withoutrightorjustifiablecauseonthepartofthe f! defendants(whichconstitutesmalice);and(4)actualdamageandloss P#  resulting.Carterv.AramarkSportsandEntertainmentServs.,Inc.,153Md.App. :% " 210,240(Md.2003)(citationsomitted).': $'t"$ EssentiallyCCEandPBGargueintheirMotionstoDismissthatPlaintiffhas )^$& failedtoallegethemaliceelement,i.e.anyunlawfulactiononbehalfofCCE *H&( andPBG.TheycontendthatCCEandPBGcompetedwithEastsideby  Eastsidesownadmissionandapriceinducementtopurchasefromone  competitoroveranotherisanessentialandnaturalaspectofcompetition.Thus,  sotheargumentgoes,anypurportedpricediscriminationontheirpartcould n  notbeunlawful. X  Whilecompetitionmaybea justcausefordamaginganotherinhis B  business8therighttocompetehasitslimits.NaturalDesign,Inc.,302Md.at ,|  7273.AviolationoftheMarylandAntitrustActconstitutesoneofthese f  limitations.SeeId.at7275;SeeMartellov.BlueCrossandBlueShieldof P Maryland,Inc.,etal,143Md.App.462,478(2002);PurityProds.,Inc.v.Tropicana : Prods.,Inc.,702F.Supp564,575(D.Md.1988). XbXXXb  1 "  12      XbXh Xb  Moreover,ifacomplaintthatan $ entityhasviolatedtheActisstillviable,then thecommonlawtort[suchas  tortiousinterferencewithperspectiveadvantage]whichcouldbepredicated  upon[aviolationoftheAct,][is]ipsofactoalsostillviable.Martello,143Md.  App.at478;seealsoNaturalDesign,Inc.,302Md.at74.   | ThisCourthasalreadyheld,supra,thatPlaintiffhassufficientlypledaprice f! discriminationclaiminviolationofsection11204(a)(3)oftheAct.Asthisclaimis P#  stillviable,soisCountVfortortiousinterferencewithperspectivebusiness :% " advantage.Accordingly,thisCourtdeniesCCEsandPBGsMotionstoDismiss $'t"$ astoCountV.  XbXXXbXbXXXb       X& f 8  CountIV:InjunctiveRelief8 dзԌ  Ќ  XbXXXbXbXXXb     XXbXXXbXbXXXb   ߏ  Section11209(b)(2)(i)oftheActspecificallyprovidesthat [a]person n  whosebusinessofpropertyhasbeeninjuredorthreatenedwithinjurybya X  violationof11204ofthissubtitlemaymaintainanaction8foraninjunction. B  Therefore,asthisCourthasheldthatPlaintiffhassufficientlypledthatithas ,|  sustainedaninjuryorhasbeenthreatenedbyaviolationofsection11204(a)(3), f  CCEsandPBGsMotionsastoCountIVaredenied.'f ݎ ߏh݌ P ЌXbXXXbXbXXXb X  X :  X  Conclusion  $  X  FortheaforementionedreasonsinPartI,thisCourtgrantsDefendant  MarsMotiontoDismissastoeachCount.ThisCourtalsograntsbothCCEsand  PBGsMotionstoDismissastoCountIV.However,thisCourtholdsthatPlaintiff  hassufficientlypledaviolationofsection11204(a)(3)againstCCEandPBGin | somuchasitallegesthatitcompeteswithgrocerychainretailersandclub f! storesforthevendingownerandoperatorbusiness.Therefore,CCEsandPBGs P#  MotionstoDismissastoCountsI,VandVIaredenied. :% "  $'t"$  XӀ___________ `     h     ________________________________ )^$& Date   `     h     KayeA.Allison *S%'  hJudge  *H&( ='). =<H =  h3p x (#X(#3 8dd8EASTSIDEVEND Q**    hH.` hp x (#X(#H DISTRIBUTORS,INC.    h     INTHE  3p x (#X(#3Q**     H.` hp x (#X(#HPlaintiff    h     CIRCUITCOURT   3p x (#X(#3Q**      hH.` hp x (#X(#HV.   `     h     FOR y    h3p x (#X(#3Q**   n  H.` hp x (#X(#H COCACOLA,     h     BALTIMORECITY c  3p x (#X(#3 ENTERPRISES.,INC,ETAL Q**   X   H.` hp x (#X(#HCASENO.:24C04003998 M    3p x (#X(#3Q**   B   X h6p x (#X(#6DefendantsQ* 7   X x6(#p x (#X(#6Q##**********************  ,|    x  H.` hp x (#(#X(#HORDER  !q    XUponconsiderationofDefendantMarsSuperMarket,Inc.s( Mars),  [ DefendantCocaColaEnterprises,Inc.s( CCE)andPepsiBottlingGroup,Inc.s E ( PBG)MotionstoDismiss,PlaintiffEastsideVendDistributors,Inc.s( Eastside) / Responses,theRepliesfiledbyeachoftheDefendants,andoralhearing,forthe  reasonssetforthintheintheaccompanyingMemorandumofDecision,itisthis  ________dayofMay,2006bytheCircuitCourtforBaltimoreCityhereby   ORDERED thatDefendantMarsMotiontoDismissis GRANTED initsentirety;  anditis q   FURTHERORDERED thatallclaimsagainstDefendantMarsbe DISMISSED  [" withprejudice;anditis E$!  FURTHERORDERED thatDefendantsCCEsandPBGsMotionstoDismiss /&!# arehereby GRANTED onlyastoCountIVforaRuleofReasonViolation:anditis (i#%  FURTHERORDERD thatCountTIVforaRuleofReasonViolationbe *S%'  DISMISSED againstDefendantsCCEandPBG;anditis +=')  FURTHERORDERED thatDefendantsCCEsandPBGsMotionstoDismissas  toCountIforDiscriminatoryPricinginViolationoftheMarylandAntitrustAct,  CountVforTortiousInterferencewithProspectiveBusinessAdvantage,and  CountVIforInjunctiveReliefarehereby DENIED . n   X_____________    h     ________________________________ ,|  Date   `     h     KayeA.Allison !q   hJudge f   hXXb