William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc., 75--1570

Citation526 F.2d 86
Decision Date28 November 1975
Docket NumberNo. 75--1570,75--1570
Parties1975-2 Trade Cases 60,634 WILLIAM INGLIS & SONS BAKING CO., a corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ITT CONTINENTAL BAKING CO., INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Archer, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees
OPINION

Before BROWNING and CHOY, Circuit Judges, and SKOPIL, * District Judge.

SKOPIL, District Judge:

In 1971 William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. (Inglis) and four other wholesale baking companies filed this antitrust action against various competitors within relevant geographic markets in Washington, Oregon, and California. The complaint charged violations of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2; § 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13(a); §§ 3 and 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 14 and 18; and applicable state laws, including § 17000 et seq. of the California Unfair Practices Act (UPA), Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 17000 et seq.

In 1974 Inglis moved for a preliminary injunction in the Northern California market against five of the defendants: ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc., American Bakeries Company, Rainbo Baking Co. of Sacramento Valley, Kilpatrick's Bakeries, Inc., and San Joaquin Bakeries, Inc. The latter three defendants are subsidiaries of defendant Campbell Taggart, Inc. The preliminary injunction sought involved only alleged violations of § 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act and § 17000 et seq. of the California UPA.

The district court conducted extensive hearings on the motion, reviewed voluminous briefs submitted by the parties, and ordered preparation of cost studies by the defendants. On January 21, 1975, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order denying issuance of the preliminary injunction requested by Inglis. William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc., 389 F.Supp. 1334 (N.D.Cal.1975). Plaintiff appeals from that denial pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We vacate and remand.

Our disposition of this case makes a detailed discussion of the facts unnecessary. Basically, plaintiff contends that the defendants are guilty of discriminatory and below-cost pricing of their 'private label' bread products. 1 As one of their defenses to these allegations, defendants assert that their bread prices were established in a good faith effort to meet competition. The meeting competition defense is a statutory defense to violations of both § 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act and the UPA. 2

The district court stated that a plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction only if the court finds that (1) the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if injunctive relief is not granted, (2) the plaintiff will probably prevail on the merits, (3) in balancing the equities, the defendants will not be harmed more than plaintiff is helped by the injunction, and (4) granting the injunction is in the public interest. See Sierra Club v. Hickel, 433 F.2d 24, 33 (9th Cir. 1970), aff'd, 405 U.S. 727, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972); C. Tennant & Sons, Inc. v. New York Terminal Conference, 299 F.Supp. 796, 798--799 (S.D.N.Y.1969). The district court denied the injunction sought in this case because of its

'serious reservations as to the probability of success on the merits. In brief, while the evolution of this market does indicate a tendency toward monopoly, the court is unconvinced that the purpose of defendants (sic) conduct was to injure competition or monopolize.' 389 F.Supp. at 1338.

Even assuming that Inglis had shown a prima facie violation of § 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act and the UPA, the court found that the defendants had adequately negated such violation by the meeting competition defense.

The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is subject to reversal only if the lower court based its decision upon an erroneous legal premise or abused its discretion. Douglas v. Beneficial Finance Co. of Anchorage, 469 F.2d 453, 454 (9th Cir. 1972). As a court of appeals, our review is extremely limited:

'An appeal from an order granting or refusing an interlocutory injunction does not invoke the judicial discretion of the appellate court. The question is not whether or not that court in the exercise of its discretion would make or would have made the order. It was to the discretion of the trial court, not to that of the appellate court, that the law intrusted the granting or refusing of these injunctions, and the only question here is: Does the proof clearly establish an abuse of that discretion?' Burton v. Matanuska Valley Lines, 244 F.2d 647, 651 (9th Cir. 1957).

The district court was faced with the difficult task of resolving conflicting evidence in an extremely complex case. We are unable to find an abuse of discretion in its conclusion that plaintiff failed to satisfy the standard for granting a preliminary injunction applied by the district court.

There is, however, an alternative test that the district court did not apply. As the Second Circuit stated in Charlie's Girls, Inc. v. Revlon, Inc.,483 F.2d 953, 954 (2d Cir. 1973): 'One moving for a preliminary injunction assumes the burden of demonstrating either a combination of probable success and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
141 cases
  • Bracco v. Lackner
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • April 5, 1978
    ...merits of the litigation and demonstrate a balance of hardships tipping sharply in their favor. William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 526 F.2d 86 (9th Cir. 1975). Plaintiffs have raised such questions and demonstrated the requisite Reclassification Plaintiffs claim......
  • United States v. State of Washington, Civ. No. 9213—Phase I.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • June 30, 1978
    ...but they have demonstrated that the balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor. See, William Inglis and Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 526 F.2d 86 (9th Cir. 1975). For the reasons hereinabove stated, unless and until this court orders otherwise, it is now hereby ORDERE......
  • Martin v. International Olympic Committee
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • July 16, 1984
    ...party] is helped by the injunction, and (4) granting the injunction is in the public interest. William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 526 F.2d 86, 87 (9th Cir.1975). Alternatively, a court may issue a preliminary injunction if the moving party demonstrates "either a......
  • National Ass'n of Radiation Survivors v. Walters
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • June 12, 1984
    ...or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor." William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc., 526 F.2d 86, 88 (9th Cir.1976) (emphasis omitted), quoting Charlie's Girls, Inc. v. Revlon, Inc., 483 F.2d 953, 954 (2d Cir.197......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library Mergers and Acquisitions: Understanding the Antitrust Issues, 2d Edition
    • January 1, 2004
    ...319 Wilk v. American Med. Association, 895 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1990), 319 William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 526 F.2d 86 (9th Cir. 1976), 450, 473 Wisconsin Music Network, Inc. v. Muzak Ltd. Partnership, 5 F.3d 218 (7th Cir. 1993), 448 Wisconsin v. Kenosha Hospit......
  • Judicial Relief and Remedies
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Mergers and Acquisitions. Understanding the Antitrust Issues. Fourth Edition
    • December 6, 2015
    ...version. See FTC v. Warner Commc’ns, 742 F.2d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir. 1984); William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 526 F.2d 86, 88 (9th Cir. 1976) (remanding for application of alternative test). In a case brought by the FTC, the Eleventh Circuit also appeared to adop......
  • Chapter 13. Judicial Relief and Remedies
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library Mergers and Acquisitions: Understanding the Antitrust Issues, 2d Edition
    • January 1, 2004
    ...version. See FTC v. Warner Communs., 742 F.2d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir. 1984); William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 526 F.2d 86, 88 (9th Cir. 1976) (remanding for application of alternative test); see also Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 897 F.2d 1572, 1575......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Mergers and Acquisitions. Understanding the Antitrust Issues. Fourth Edition
    • December 6, 2015
    ...Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., 549 U.S. 312 (2007), 182 William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 526 F.2d 86 (9th Cir. 1976), 501, 527 Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), 503 Wisconsin v. Kenosha Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT