`
`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
`
`