Bonovich v. Convenient Food Mart, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 58248,58248 |
| Citation | 18 Ill.App.3d 884,310 N.E.2d 710 |
| Parties | , 1974-1 Trade Cases P 75,073 Earl N. BONOVICH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONVENIENT FOOD MART, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
John O. Demaret, Richard G. Crotty, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant.
Kirshbaum & Kroll, Chicago (Barry L. Kroll, Charles C. Kirshbaum, Marvin P. Shore, Chicago, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Plaintiff, Earl N. Bonovich, has been a franchisee of Convenient Food Mart since November 29, 1965. On September 28, 1971, he brought an action 'individually and in a representative capacity on behalf of all franchisees of Convenient Food Mart' against the defendants for alleged violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act. 1 The complaint alleged that defendants unlawfully restrained trade through the use of tying arrangements and price fixing in that, as a condition precedent to entering into an exclusive franchise agreement with Convenient Food Mart, plaintiff was compelled to purchase all requirements of milk, cream and other dairy products from Scot Lad Foods, Inc., and all ice cream products from Bresler Ice Cream Company. Plaintiff's complaint further averred that he sustained a financial loss because he was unable to purchase dairy and ice cream products at cheaper prices from other companies and, therefore, could not compete in price with similar convenience stores in such products.
Previously, on June 8, 1971, the Attorney General of the State of Illinois had filed a complaint (71 CH 4218) against the defendants for the same alleged violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act. After a five day trial on the merits, a finding in favor of the defendants was entered in the People's case on December 22, 1971.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 25, 1972. All defendants filed motions to strike the amended complaint, based principally upon the legal effect of the prior judgment entered in the People's suit. On June 8, 1972, the Honorable Daniel A. Covelli ordered the amended complaint stricken, and plaintiff appeals from that order.
On appeal, plaintiff presents several issues for review but the only one we consider necessary to discuss is whether or not plaintiff's action is barred as a result of the prior antitrust action brought against the defendants herein by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois.
The question posed by this appeal is not answered, in specific terms, by the statute. Section 60--7(1) of the Illinois Antitrust Act authorizes the Attorney General to institute civil proceedings to prevent and restrain violations of the Act and directs the court, in such proceedings, to determine whether a violation has been committed. Section 60--7(2) of the Act permits any person who has been injured in his business or property by a violation of the Act to maintain an action for damages and for an injunction. The Act is silent as to whether an allegedly injured person may bring an action under Section 60--7(2) where the Attorney General has already done so under Section 60--7(1).
Pursuant to Section 60--7(1), the Attorney General brought suit against the defendants to establish whether a violation of the Act existed. We believe that the Attorney General's action, filed in the name of the People of the State of Illinois, was brought on behalf of all the people in the state, including plaintiff and the other Convenient Food Mart franchisees, who were adversely affected by the alleged antitrust violations.
In Little v. Chicago National Life Insurance Co. (1937), 289 Ill.App. 433, 7 N.E.2d 326, the court ruled that where the Attorney General of Illinois, in that case acting for the Director of Trade and Commerce of Illinois, had instituted a receivership action against a corporation, a creditor of the corporation could not thereafter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. CALLAN PUB., INC.
...respond that plaintiffs are deemed to be parties to the AG action and, in support, rely on Bonovich v. Convenient Food Mart, Inc., 18 Ill.App.3d 884, 886, 310 N.E.2d 710, 711 (1974) (Attorney General's action filed in the name of the People of the State of Illinois was brought on behalf of ......
-
People ex rel. Fahner v. Climatemp, Inc.
... ... 110, par. 48.) ... Defendants rely on Bonovich v. Convenient Food Mart, Inc. (1974), 18 Ill.App.3d 884, 310 N.E.2d 710, ... ...
-
Tambone v. Simpson
...of the statute. See also Abbott v. Abbott (1977), 52 Ill.App.3d 728, 10 Ill.Dec. 464, 367 N.E.2d 1073; Bonovich v. Convenient Food Mart, Inc. (1974), 18 Ill.App.3d 884, 310 N.E.2d 710; but see Fredman v. Clore (1973), 13 Ill.App.3d 903, 301 N.E.2d 7, aff'd in part on other grounds, rev'd in......
-
Baker v. Salomon
...East Side Levee & Sanitary Dist. v. Madison Cty. Levee & Sanitary Dist., 54 Ill.2d 442, 298 N.E.2d 177; Bonovich v. Convenient Food Mart, Inc., 18 Ill.App.3d 884, 310 N.E.2d 710. Moreover, before enactment of the statute that later became section 48(1)(c), an objection to a second suit beca......
-
Illinois. Practice Text
...F. Supp. 2d 82, 101 (D.D.C. 2008). 280. 740 ILL. COMP. STAT. 10/7(2). 281. Id . 282. Id . 10/8. 283. Bonovich v. Convenient Food Mart, 310 N.E.2d 710 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974). But see People ex rel. Fahner v. Climatemp, Inc., 428 N.E.2d 1096 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981) (questioning Bonovich ). Cf. Jac......
-
CLASS ACTION SQUARED: MULTISTATE ACTIONS AND AGENCY DILEMMAS.
...note 14, at 2330. State courts have also found preclusive effects of state antitrust law. See Bonovich v. Convenient Food Mart, Inc., 310 N.E.2d 710, 711 (111. App. Ct. 1974) (holding unsuccessful parens patriae action by attorney general under state antitrust statute precluded private anti......