throbber
Case: 3:17-cv-00595-jdp Document #: 108 Filed: 05/21/20 Page 1 of 3
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
`
`
`
`
`MOUNTAIN CREST SRL, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-595
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ANHEUSER-BUSCH InBEV SA/NV,
`individually and as successor to InBev SA/NV
`and Interbrew S.A.; and
`
`MOLSON COORS BREWING COMPANY,
`individually and as successor to Molson Canada
`Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Judgment and Grant Leave to Amend the Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Mountain Crest moves the Court under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e)
`
`to amend the judgment and grant Mountain Crest leave to amend its complaint to pursue claims
`
`that Defendants’ violated the antitrust laws when they used their ownership of Brewers Retail
`
`Inc. and control of its board of directors to limit or eliminate competition in Ontario from
`
`Mountain Crest’s exports, particularly in sales of 12-packs and above.
`
`Competitors agreeing to restrict market competition is a classic horizontal restraint of
`
`trade that violates the antitrust laws. This Court recognized as much in its opinion, noting how
`
`“[c]ausation does not appear to be a problem with these challenged practices.” Op. & Order, Dkt
`
`106 at 16 (filed Apr. 24, 2020). The Court dismissed the claims nonetheless because “a problem
`
`common to all of the claims is that Mountain Crest hasn’t identified any participation by
`
`

`

`Case: 3:17-cv-00595-jdp Document #: 108 Filed: 05/21/20 Page 2 of 3
`
`defendants in the alleged practices.” Id. The proposed amendments address the factual issues first
`
`identified in the Court’s opinion.1
`
`The grounds for this motion are set forth in the accompanying brief and the Declaration
`
`of Krista K. Baisch, including the proposed third amended complaint, attached as Exhibit A, and
`
`comparison to the existing complaint showing the proposed amendments, attached is Exhibit B.
`
`Dated: May 21, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: s/Charles J. Crueger
`Charles J. Crueger
`cjc@cruegerdickinson.com
`Erin K. Dickinson
`ekd@cruegerdickinson.com
`Krista K. Baisch
`kkb@cruegerdickinson.com
`CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC
`4532 N Oakland Ave.
`Whitefish Bay, WI 53211
`Direct: 414-210-3868
`
`Charles Benoit
`charles.benoit@cebenoit.com
`2701 Calvert St. NW,
`Washington, DC 20008
`Phone: 202-734-0939
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Mountain Crest
`SRL, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Mountain Crest also claimed that Defendants violated the antitrust laws by coercing the Liquor
`Control Board of Ontario to adopt and maintain the “six-pack” rule. The Court dismissed that claim as
`barred by the act of state doctrine. While Mountain Crest disagrees, this motion is not requesting
`reconsideration of that decision. Nor is Mountain Crest asking the Court to reconsider its dismissal of the
`state law unjust enrichment claim.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 3:17-cv-00595-jdp Document #: 108 Filed: 05/21/20 Page 3 of 3
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on May 21, 2020, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed with
`
`the Clerk of Court using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing
`
`to all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Charles J. Crueger
`Charles J. Crueger
`
`
`
`3
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket