O.E.M. Glass Network Inc. and Brooklyn Wholesale Glass Inc. (known together as OEMGN) have filed an amended complaint in the ongoing boycott lawsuit involving several auto glass manufacturers. The amended complaint alleges the 10 companies involved “conspired against the company in an attempt to eliminate it from the market.”
The following are listed as the defendants in the OEMGN lawsuit: Mygrant Glass Company Inc. (Mygrant), Interstate Glass of Amityville NY LLC (Interstate), Metro Glass Distributing Inc. (Metro Glass), Xinyi Auto Glass North America Corp. (Xinyi), Vitro S.A.B. de C.V., Vitro Automotive Glass LLC, Fuyao Glass America Inc. (Fuyao), Auto Temp Inc. and Sika Corp.
OEMGN claims Migrant and Interstate vowed to discontinue purchasing from auto glass and urethane manufacturers who continue to deal and work with OEMGN.
“Defendants’ scheme has been successful. Because of Defendants’ illegal acts, OEMGN has been unable to purchase the aftermarket auto glass products needed to maintain a sufficiently voluminous and diverse stock to compete viably. Accordingly, OEMGN has lost substantial business. Defendants’ misconduct has not only harmed OEMGN, it has also harmed competition, including by inflating the prices for aftermarket auto glass products paid by retailers and consumers, and reducing output,” a portion of the amended complaint reads.
Due to the allegations mentioned in the company’s amended complaint, it is seeking a trial by jury. The court has yet to respond to the request or the updated complaint.
The case began in February 2019 with OEMGN’s original complaint which claimed a boycott involving several auto glass manufacturers was taking place against OEMGN, which resulted in loss of compensation for the two wholesale companies. OEMGN alleged a scheme to eliminate it from the market was also taking place. Following the original complaint the courts extended time for the companies listed on the defense to file a response to OEMGN’s claims. After which, the defendants joined to file a joint motion to dismiss on three grounds that included:
- The plaintiff’s Sherman Act claim is not valid because the complaint contains no factual allegations to support OEMGN’s claim that Mygrant and Interstate entered into an agreement to boycott OEMGN and subsequently convinced the manufacturer Defendants to join such a conspiracy.
- The plaintiffs’ Donnelly Act claim is not valid because it does not add new factual allegations. Alternatively, the Donnelly Act claim should be dismissed if the Federal Sherman Act claim is dismissed.
- The plaintiffs’ interference with prospective business relations claim must also be dismissed because it fails to state a claim for an antitrust violation, or allege any other intentional or dishonest conduct.
OEMGN then responded to the defenses joint motion and urged the court to continue pursuing the lawsuit with a trial. The response claimed Mygrant aimed to “ensure there would be one less guy in town.”
“Mygrant and Interstate sought to make their price-cutting competitor OEMGN a cancer, according to Interstate’s owner, Angelo Marino, by pressuring OEMGN’s suppliers – including the Manufacturer Defendants – to cut off sales to OEMGN and preclude it from obtaining supply through alternate channels,” a portion of the response reads.
According to court documents, OEMGN believes the defendants’ boycott limited customer choice, reduced output, reduced quality, and led to retailers and, in turn, consumers, paying higher prices for aftermarket auto glass products.
“Defendants’ conspiracy is the worst-kept secret in the industry. The manufacturer defendants – as well as other industry participants – have repeatedly told OEMGN, point blank, that they would no longer sell products to OEMGN due to the pressure exerted by Mygrant and Interstate,” a portion of the amended complaint reads.
OEMGN currently wants the court to approve its request for a trial by jury. At this time the court has yet to respond to the request or the updated complaint.