Judge Perry found that Ducere did not adequately establish that Enbridge’s conduct was anticompetitive. She pointed out that there are several alternative pipeline routes from Canada to refineries in the southern Midwest and Gulf Coast, making it difficult for Ducere to claim that Enbridge’s pipelines were essential for the transportation of crude oil.
The court also dismissed the claim under the “essential facilities” doctrine, which holds that a monopolist can violate antitrust laws by denying access to a facility that is necessary for competition. Judge Perry noted that Ducere had failed to demonstrate that Enbridge’s Mustang pipeline was the only viable route for crude oil transport or that other pipelines could not meet the needs of refineries in the region.
While Ducere was permitted to amend its claims related to the essential facilities doctrine, the court made it clear that the plaintiff would need to substantially strengthen its allegations regarding the market and Enbridge’s role in it. Judge Perry also rejected Ducere’s argument that Enbridge’s actions were driven by a desire to maintain its monopoly, emphasizing that the company’s refusal to deal with Ducere did not imply anticompetitive intent.
