11th Circuit takes swing at monopoly claims in golf turf tiff

ATLANTA (CN) — The makers of a “one-of-a-kind” golf putting turf asked the 11th Circuit Tuesday to revive their lawsuit against a manufacturer for luring it into a business partnership and then cutting it out of production.

All of StarPro Greens’ antitrust, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, emotional distress and breach of contract claims were dismissed last year by a Georgia federal judge. And the three-judge appeals panel appeared unlikely to breathe new life into most of the accusations.

After successfully patenting a putting cup, Daniel Selton and his distribution company, StarPro Greens, developed a synthetic putting surface called Master Putting Turf. In 2020, StarPro partnered with Challenger Turf after its original manufacturer stopped making Master Putting Turf.

Challenger Turf agreed to manufacture its special putting turf and enticed StarPro to enter into a three-way arrangement with TenCate North America, also known as Polyloom Corporation of America, which would provide warehousing, cutting and shipment services.

But this seemingly profitable business relationship turned sour for StarPro in 2022, when its new partners decided to keep the turf for themselves and ceased producing it for the company.

The following year, Challenger Turf and TenCate attempted to sell Master Putting Turf to StarPro at a heavily inflated price. StarPro argues it was left with no alternative but to accept the higher price and purchase the product because its two former affiliates had now formed a monopoly as the only producers of the distinctive turf.

“Another manufacturer could go make this putting surface,” U.S. Circuit Judge Embry Kidd said.

The Joe Biden appointee and his colleagues were not fully persuaded that the two companies had actually formed a monopoly, because any one of the myriad of synthetic turf manufacturers could also enter the market and begin manufacturing Master Putting Turf.

Moreover, if there is no existing monopoly, StarPro’s claims that the manufacturers’ refusal to deal violates antitrust laws also fail, U.S. Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan said.

“You can’t bootstrap monopoly power with a claim of refusal to deal. That requires a monopoly power or something very close to it,” the Barack Obama appointee said.

StarPro’s attorney Gerald Boss argued that when the company purchased Master Putting Turf from the producers, it was substituted for a defective product with a reduced “stimp” value, which represents how fast golf balls roll on the putting surface.

Based on the poor performance of the putting turf, StarPro claims customers complained and it was forced to return or reject 70% of all sold products, with no reimbursement from the manufacturers.

“Deviously, defendants reneged on delivering the agreed upon one of a kind putting turf and substituted an inferior product which resulted in multiple consumer complaints, returns and all putting turf and putting green sales had to cease, thus putting the final nail in the coffin of StarPro,” the company wrote in its appellant brief to the court.

Attorney Devin Dolive, representing Polyloom and Challenger Turf, argued Selton inspected the substituted turf product and determined it was not of the same quality, yet knowingly accepted and distributed it to StarPro’s customers.

However, U.S. Circuit Judge Jill Pryor, a fellow Obama appointee, questioned whether the manufacturers were lawfully allowed to deliver an inferior product than what was expected from the purchase.

The circuit judges did not signal when they intend to release a ruling. The legal battle is not the first for Polyloom, which sued a nonprofit organization and several individuals last year for defamation, arguing they disseminated false information about the safety and environmental impact of artificial turf.

Follow @Megwiththenews