Beverage Distributors, Inc. v. OLYMPIA BREWING COMPANY
| Citation | 395 F.2d 850 |
| Decision Date | 17 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 22364,22364 |
| Parties | BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. OLYMPIA BREWING COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee. OLYMPIA BREWING COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Ben H. Parkinson, Jr. (argued), Douglas P. Ferguson, of Ackerman, Johnston, Norberg & Parkinson, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant Beverage Distributors, Inc.
David Brice Toy (argued), John C. McHose, David Strain, of Lillick, McHose, Wheat, Adams & Charles, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee Olympia Brewing Co.
Before CHAMBERS and BROWNING, Circuit Judges, and BELLONI, District Judge.
The court views the temporary injunction as an interim order which attempts to approximately maintain the status quo ante, a little difficult to do because of the interposition of "fair trading." Under the circumstances, the court is generally satisfied with the temporary injunction. It does not believe that the temporary injunction necessarily reflects what the ultimate disposition will be.
This court believes it would be appropriate to amend the temporary injunction to permit, until judgment in the district court, Beverage Distributors, Inc., to buy all of the beer from Olympia Brewing Company it desires to buy, subject to such qualifications as that the purchases should not require Olympia to construct new facilities and the purchases should be ordered in a timely manner so that Olympia will not be seriously discommoded in deliveries to others. The district court is authorized and requested to make such modifications.
This court does not believe the temporary injunction should approach "permanency" simply because of delays in getting to trial and suggests that the parties should try to expedite the case in the district court. Perhaps the time spent on this appeal by both sides would have been enough to get the case to trial by now.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kaiser Trading Co. v. Associated Metals & Minerals Corp.
...The status quo is the last, uncontested status preceding the commencement of the controversy. See Beverage Distributors, Inc. v. Olympia Brewing Co., 395 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1968); Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. v. Avis, Inc., 316 F.2d 804, 808-809 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 821, 84 S.Ct.......
-
Beverage Distributors, Inc. v. Olympia Brewing Co.
... ... Certiorari Denied June 7, 1971. See 91 S.Ct. 2209 ... TRASK, Circuit Judge: ... This is an action by Beverage Distributors, Inc. to recover treble damages from Olympia Brewing Company under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15, for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and for injunctive relief. 15 U.S.C. § 26. Jurisdiction is also invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1337. (General jurisdiction of district courts over trade restraints and monopolies) ... ...
-
A Quaker Action Group v. Hickel
... ... 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965); Bantam Books Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70, 83 S.Ct. 631, 9 ... § 2106 (1964); Beverage ... § 2106 (1964); Beverage Distributors ... v. Olympia ... v. Olympia Brewing ... ...
-
Interphoto Corporation v. Minolta Corporation, 69 Civ. 130.
... ... and conspiracy with other distributors under which Minolta allocated territories and ... Raygram-Hornstein, Inc. (hereinafter "Raygram"), is a division of ... termination date; it provided that either company had the right to cancel without cause on thirty ... g., Beverage Distributors, Inc. v. Olympia Brewing Co., 5 ... ...