Acquaire v. Canada Dry Bottling Co. of New York, Inc., K-MAC
| Citation | 24 F.3d 401 |
| Decision Date | 13 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | 711,K-MAC,JAG-D,AFL-CIO,Nos. 549,D,s. 549 |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Parties | , 1994-1 Trade Cases P 70,592 Frank ACQUAIRE; Bilo II Rev. Inc.; Paul Adams; Adams Bev. Inc.; V. Aielo; Andre Alves; A & A Beverage Dist., Inc.; William Anderson; Mojo Satchmo Inc.; Daniel Baker; Meld Beverage Corp.; Douglas Barnes; Barnes Dist. Inc.; Richard Begany; R.A. Richie Bev. Dist. Inc.; Frank Bradley; Frank J. Bradley, Sr.; Scott Browner; Scotto Bev. Inc.; John Brunner; JCQM Beverage Inc.; Gregory Burke; B.G.M. Beverage Inc.; James Byrnes; J.I.M. Bev. Inc.; Nicholas Campanelli; Nikki Bev. Dist. Inc.; Russell Candella; Russlino Bev. Inc.; Frank Carrelli, Jr.; Hylan Bev. Inc.; Carmine Caruso; Lincoln Bev. Inc.; Nickolas Castronvova; C & N Beverage Corp.; John Cetrulo; J.V.C. Mixers Inc.; Gregory Clemente; G.A.C. Beverage Corp.; Russell Compese; Compese Bev. Co. Inc.; 7650 Enterprises Inc.; Rocco Cortese; Ann-Roc Bev. Dist. Inc.; Allen Cowan; Mi-Cin Bev. Dist. Inc.; Robert Cummings; Cummings Beverage Inc.; Jack Cutrone; Capt'n Jack Bev. Inc.; Pat Dattalo; P & T Beverage Corp. III, Inc.; W.J. Debella; Bad Beverage Inc.; A.J. Debello; A.J. Debello Jr. Inc.; Anthony Deruvo; Anthony Deruvo Bev. Inc.; Ben Diasparra; B & T Bev. Inc.; Michael DiOrio; 3 DiOrio's Dist. Inc.; Richard DiCarlo; R & A Beverage Inc.; Michael DiCicco; City Lights Bev. Inc.; John Drew; Drew Dist. Inc.; Matthew Drohan; Mandro Bev. Inc.; Dean Ellerthorpe; Vernon Inc. of Landing, Inc.; Robert Florio; R.R.M. Beverage Corp.; Ed Franz; E. Franz & Sons Inc.; Herman Gonzales; D & H Dist. Corp. Inc.; John Gregg; Ron & Jack Bev. Corp.; Phil Gualielmetti; Rainbow Falls Beverage Inc.; Robert Gulino; R.J.G. & Sons Bev. Inc.; Robert W. Gunning; N & R Beverage Inc.; George Hammer; Kamel Dist. Inc.; Paul Hartman; G.P.H. Dist. Inc.; Robert Hasenbein; Rob-Liz Bev. Dist. Inc.; Barry Helstrom; G.S. & M. Dist. Inc.; Russell Holhman; Ruslin Bev. Corp.; Ruslin Bev. Dist. Inc.; Robert Holgerson; Lanson Hyatt; Hyatt Dist. Inc.; Eugene Kelly; E & K Beverage Inc.; Phillip Lenzy; P.P.C. Lenzy Dist. Inc.; Robert Levine; |
Kenneth F. McCallion, New York City, Barbara J. Hart, James W. Johnson, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, for plaintiffs-appellants-cross-appellees.
Peter E. Greene, New York City, Jonathan J. Lerner, Gary A. MacDonald, Alan J. Meese, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, for defendant-appellee-cross-appellant.
Before: PRATT and MINER, Circuit Judges, CAMPBELL, * Senior Circuit Judge.
In these appeals we review the district court's order granting in part and denying in part a motion for a preliminary injunction. We affirm the order in its entirety.
Plaintiffs-appellants are independent distributors of soft drink products bottled and/or distributed by defendant-appellee, Canada Dry Bottling Company of New York, Inc. ("Canada Dry"). 1 On November 21, 1990, they sued Canada Dry and others in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging, inter alia, that Canada Dry had conspired to restrain the trade of soft drink products in violation of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the Taft-Hartley Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act.
Two days later, on November 23, 1990, Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent Canada Dry "from engaging in certain conduct, including 'enforcing, directly or indirectly, against plaintiff-distributors any mandatory resale price [maintenance] policy or practice with respect to products distributed by [P]laintiffs' and from committing any violations of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1." Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, at 2 (Mar. 5, 1993) (quoting Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law (Nov. 21, 1990)). Judge Sifton, who was then assigned to this case, denied Plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order, and, on December 7, 1990, heard argument on Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge Sifton reserved judgment on Plaintiffs' motion. Thereafter, Plaintiffs and Canada Dry, as well as the other defendants, entered into "protracted, court assisted, negotiations in an effort to settle this action." Id. Plaintiffs' November 23, 1990, "motion for a preliminary injunction was never decided and appears to have been abandoned." Id.
Over two years later, on February 4, 1993, Plaintiffs brought a fresh motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction before Judge Weinstein, who was sitting as the "miscellaneous" judge. Plaintiffs say they filed this second application in response to new measures taken by Canada Dry to enforce its resale price maintenance policy. Plaintiffs assert in their appellate brief that these measures, which were associated with a funded promotional discount program implemented by Canada Dry, included
(1) Canada Dry's requirement that customer signatures be obtained on company invoices with fixed prices pre-printed on them whenever promotional monies were used, and that participation in promotional programs be conditioned on the use of company mandated prices; and (2) the withholding of product and refusal to release trucks for distributors who did not acquiesce to Canada Dry's promotional policy.
According to Plaintiffs, "[t]hese two enforcement mechanisms were not in place at the time of the filing of the November, 23, 1990, Motion For Preliminary Injunction."
Judge Weinstein, who was unaware of Plaintiffs' earlier injunctive applications in 1990, granted a temporary restraining order. He enjoined defendants Canada Dry, Harold Honickman, and Dennis Berberich (as well as their agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them) from:
1. engaging in coercive actions in order to force plaintiff-distributors into using "suggested" resale prices dictated by Canada Dry, including but not limited to, requiring the signature of customers on pre-printed invoices bearing company mandated prices printed on [them] before processing said invoices, and refusing to release loaded truck[s] of distributors who do not submit invoices...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bliss v. Rochester City School Dist.
... ... United States District Court, W.D. New York ... March 28, 2002 ... Page 315 ... Barge v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 87 F.3d 256, 260 (8th Cir.1996) (citations and ... in favor of the moving party." Acquaire v. Canada Dry Bottling Co., 24 F.3d 401, 409 (2d ... ...
-
Acquaire v. Canada Dry Bottling
... ... No. 90-CV-4005 (JG) ... United States District Court, E.D. New York ... November 6, 1995. 906 F. Supp. 820 COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED 906 F. Supp ... Orr, Kenneth S. Prince, Shearman & Sterling, New York City, for Defendants Cadbury Beverages, Inc., Canada Dry U.S.A., James Smith, Schweppes U.S.A. and Cadbury Schweppes PLC ... ...
-
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
... ... , Pro Hac Vice, Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP, New York, NY, Paul Jeffrey Riehle, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath ... 253 F.3d at 87. 29 Epic Games citation to Acquaire v. Canada Dry Bottling Co. , 24 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 1994) is ... ...
-
Bon-Ton Stores, Inc. v. May Dept. Stores Co., 94-CV-6454L
... ... STATE OF NEW YORK By G. Oliver KOPPELL, Attorney General, Plaintiff, ... The ... purchasers throughout the United States and Canada were notified and sixteen were sufficiently interested to ... Acquaire v. Canada Dry Bottling Co. of New York, 24 F.3d 401, 409 ... ...
-
Resale pricing issues
...embed[s]” the distinction between “coercion” and “exposition, persuasion, and argument”); see also Acquaire v. Canada Dry Bottling Co. , 24 F.3d 401, 410 (2d Cir. 1994) (“Evidence of pricing suggestions, persuasion, conversations, arguments, exposition, or pressure is not sufficient to esta......
-
Antitrust Law
...Inc., 807 F.2d 1222, 1227, Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶ 8740 (5th Cir. 1987). 75 . See, e.g. , Acquaire v. Canada Dry Bottling Co., 24 F.3d 401, 410 (2d Cir. 1994) (“[e]vidence of pricing suggestions, persuasion, conversations, arguments, exposition, or pressure is not sufficient to establi......
-
Pricing Issues
...Co., No. 01-CV-124, 2002 WL 31011266, at *11 (N.D. Tex. June 4, 2002) (not for publication). 27. Cf. Acquaire v. Can. Dry Bottling Co., 24 F.3d 401, 410 (2d Cir. 1994) (approving requirement to obtain customer signatures on preprinted 52 Antitrust Handbook for Franchise and Distribution Pra......
-
Table of Cases
...(N.D. Ill. June 25, 2002), 78 Acme Refrigeration v. Whirlpool Corp., 785 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1986), 83 Acquaire v. Can. Dry Bottling Co., 24 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 1994), 51, 56, 57, 58, 61 AD/SAT v. Associated Press, 181 F.3d 216 (2d Cir. 1999), 19 Ajir v. Exxon Corp., No. 97-17032, 1999 WL 393......