A federal court in Kentucky recently granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a distributor’s claims related to its two distribution agreements with hydraulic excavator and shovel manufacturer Hitachi Construction Machinery Americas Inc. Rudd Equip. Co., Inc. v. Hitachi Constr. Mach. Americas Inc., 2025 WL 2670575 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 17, 2025).
The case involves a dispute between distributor Rudd Equipment Company, Inc. and Hitachi over two long-standing distribution agreements granting Rudd exclusive rights to sell Hitachi’s hydraulic excavators and related products in seven states. Rudd alleged that Hitachi attempted to impose a mandatory sales quota and later sought arbitration to declare the agreements non-exclusive and justify termination, which was denied. Despite this, Hitachi issued a termination notice, claiming the agreements terminated by operation of law. Rudd responded by filing an amended complaint asserting violations of Kentucky’s supplier coercion statute (KRS 365.832), improper termination, and breach of contract, seeking both damages and injunctive relief.
Hitachi moved to dismiss several counts, arguing that KRS 365.832 does not provide a private right of action, certain claims were moot due to contract termination, and equitable relief was inappropriate given available legal remedies. The court agreed that no private cause of action exists under KRS 365.832, finding that there was no express or implied private right or action, and dismissed the related claims without prejudice. However, it rejected Hitachi’s mootness argument regarding the breach of contract claim, and declined to dismiss claims for equitable relief, noting that loss of goodwill and exclusive rights could justify such remedies. Ultimately, the motion was granted in part and denied in part, allowing Rudd’s breach of contract and equitable claims to proceed.