Team Schierl Companies et al v. Aspirus, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
TEAM SCHIERL COMPANIES and
HEARTLAND FARMS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ASPIRUS, INC. and ASPIRUS NETWORK, INC.,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
22-cv-580-jdp
The parties have filed a joint status report addressing the court’s proposed schedule for
this case. Dkt. 240. Neither side objects to a February 25 dispositive motions deadline, with a
28/14-day briefing schedule. But the parties disagree as to the scope of the summary judgment
motions. Plaintiffs propose that the parties brief a limited summary judgment motion on the
element of antitrust injury. The court has already excluded plaintiffs’ damages expert, whose
opinion was plaintiffs’ primary evidence in support of antitrust injury, so plaintiffs argue that
a limited summary judgment motion could be an efficient route to a final judgment.
Defendants want to brief summary judgment in full.
The court agrees with plaintiffs that a limited summary judgment motion on the
antitrust injury issue is the more efficient route. Two additional points. First, the parties appear
to agree that a ruling on the antitrust injury issue would be dispositive of the entire case only
if plaintiffs dismiss their request for injunctive relief. Dkt. 240, at 2 (citing Blue Cross & Blue
Shield United of Wis. v. Marshfield Clinic, 152 F.3d 588, 591 (7th Cir. 1998), which holds that
an antitrust plaintiff may be entitled to an injunction even if it cannot prove damages).
Plaintiffs say in the status report that they will dismiss their request for injunctive relief with
prejudice if the court adopts their proposal for a limited summary judgment motion. Dkt. 240,
Case: 3:22-cv-00580-jdp Document #: 241 Filed: 02/02/26 Page 1 of 3

2
at 2 n.1. The proper procedure to voluntarily dismiss a single claim in a suit is to file an
amended complaint. Taylor v. Brown, 787 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir. 2015). But that’s not
necessary here because injunctive relief is a remedy, not a separate claim. Accordingly, the court
accepts plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal of their request for injunctive relief.
Second, there appears to be some disagreement between the parties about exactly what
issues they should brief in the limited summary judgment motion. In the status report,
defendants say that they
plan to move for summary judgment on multiple independent
grounds, not limited to plaintiffs’ inability to prove the essential
element of antitrust injury. And even as to that specific element,
there are multiple reasons why plaintiffs cannot prove antitrust
injury beyond their inability to substantiate their claim for
overcharge damages . . . Defendants also intend to file a Daubert
motion directed to plaintiffs’ merits expert, which will raise issues
directly related to their motion for summary judgment.
Dkt. 240, at 3. To be clear, defendants’ limited summary judgment motion should address only
the element of antitrust injury, but defendants should provide all of their reasons why plaintiffs
cannot prove that element. Defendants should also file any additional Daubert motions that
are relevant to plaintiffs’ expert evidence of antitrust injury, but they need not file Daubert
motions about expert evidence directed at other issues. If the court denies summary judgment
on the antitrust injury issue, then it will reset the schedule for full dispositive motions and trial.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Dispositive motions on the issue of antitrust injury are due February 25, 2026, with
a 28/14-day briefing schedule.
2. 	Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief is DISMISSED.
Case: 3:22-cv-00580-jdp Document #: 241 Filed: 02/02/26 Page 2 of 3

3
3. 	The court will reset the remainder of the schedule after it rules on the antitrust
injury dispositive motions.
Entered February 2, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:22-cv-00580-jdp Document #: 241 Filed: 02/02/26 Page 3 of 3