Affiliated Capital Corp. v. City of Houston
Decision Date | 07 July 1981 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. H-79-1331. |
Citation | 519 F. Supp. 991 |
Parties | AFFILIATED CAPITAL CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF HOUSTON, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Charles J. Brink, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs.
Stephen D. Susman, Susman & McGowan, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs.
Rufus Wallingford, Fulbright & Jaworski, Houston, Tex., for defendants City of Houston and Mayor McConn.
Richard B. Miller, Baker & Botts, Houston, Tex., for defendant Gulf Coast Cable Television.
Various post-trial motions are pending before the Court: (1) plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief and for Entry of Judgment in Accordance with the Verdict; (2) defendant McConn's Motion for Judgment on the Verdict; (3) defendant Gulf Coast's Alternative Motions for Judgment on the Verdict, Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict or for New Trial; and (4) defendants City of Houston's and McConn's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. Having considered the record of this case, the issues addressed in the memoranda, and the arguments of counsel, the Court rules as follows with regard to the motions: (1) plaintiff's motion should be denied in its entirety; (2) defendants' motions for judgment on the verdict or for new trial should be denied; and (3) defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be granted.1
In this complex and protracted anti-trust case which resulted in a jury verdict for the plaintiff, the instant rulings by the Court are necessarily expanded upon at length in light of the trial record to explain the reasoning utilized in reaching a decision adverse to plaintiff. The issues basically revolve around the meaning of two of the jury's answers to interrogatories propounded at the close of the evidence and the Court's obligation under the law at this stage of the trial to uphold the verdict if supported by the record. While persuaded that the plaintiff's proof can be viewed as advancing a second theory of conspiracy to limit competition for cable franchises separate and apart from the boundary agreements, this Court finds no evidence apart from the boundary agreements of a conspiracy which caused harm to plaintiff. Since the jury found such boundary agreements were not part of a conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade, the necessary nexus between a conspiracy and plaintiff's failure to receive a cable franchise is lacking. Accordingly, the defendants must prevail, and a judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict in their favor will be granted.
The jury was instructed that in order to find that any of the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, they had to find the following essential elements by a preponderance of the credible evidence:
(1) that the particular defendant entered into a conspiracy or agreement with one or more other persons; and (2) that the object of this conspiracy or agreement was to divide and allocate territories and thereby eliminate plaintiff or others as competitors for cable television franchises in Houston; or that the object of this conspiracy was to limit competition to those persons who participated in the agreement.
Instruction No. 12, Jury Charge.
Further, they were instructed as follows:
Instruction No. 17, Jury Charge.
In conformity with the instructions, two interrogatories concerning liability on separate conspiracy theories, one specifically related to boundary agreements and one related to a conspiracy independent of those agreements, were submitted to the jury. The first interrogatory encompassed the issue of whether the established boundary agreements were part of an illegal conspiracy,2 and the jury responded with a negative answer. The third interrogatory encompassed the issue of whether any of the defendants participated in an illegal conspiracy to ensure that only co-conspirators would receive franchises,3 and the jury responded affirmatively, finding that defendants Gulf Coast, City of Houston and Jim McConn participated.4 The jury then found causation and damages in affirmative answers to Interrogatories Nos. 5 and 6.
Defendant Gulf Coast contends that it is entitled to judgment based on the negative answer to Interrogatory No. 1, for the following reasons:
Defendants City of Houston and McConn contend that they are entitled to judgment on the following grounds, inter alia:
Plaintiff asserts that it has never taken the position that the boundary agreements simply were a more specific and all-inclusive description of the conspiracy to limit competition. Instead, plaintiff's theory throughout the course of proceedings was that "the boundary agreements were illegal standing alone5 as well as being part of the conspiracy to limit competition", and plaintiff asserts that the boundary agreements "were not the only acts that it put in evidence to establish the existence of a conspiracy to limit competition."6 Plaintiff characterizes the conspiracy addressed in Interrogatory No. 3 as one in which the "co-conspirators agreed to limit competition from non-conspirators, including plaintiff..., and agreed to limit competition with each other."7
Boeing Company v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374-75 (5th Cir. 1969) (en banc); accord, Bazile v. Bisso Marine Company, 606 F.2d 101, 104 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 101 S.Ct. 94, 66 L.Ed.2d 33 (1981). Pursuant to the Court's obligation to implement that standard, the Court carefully has reviewed documentary evidence and testimony in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and has analyzed comprehensively the plaintiff's assertions regarding the inferences to be drawn therefrom.
The Court concludes that with regard to liability of defendants for a conspiracy to limit competition of non-conspirators and to limit competition among co-conspirators, that is, whether such a conspiracy existed independent of the boundary agreements and whether defendants Gulf Coast, City of Houston and McConn participated in it, substantial evidence exists in the record to create a likelihood that reasonable persons could reach different conclusions. With regard to evidence of a causal relationship between that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blank v. Kirwan
...generally 1 Areeda & Turner, Antitrust Law (1978) p 204d, pp. 49-50 [hereafter 1 Areeda & Turner] ). (Affiliated Capital Corp. v. City of Houston (S.D.Tex.1981) 519 F.Supp. 991, 1024; Wilmorite, Inc. v. Eagan Real Estate, Inc. (N.D.N.Y.1977) 454 F.Supp. 1124, 1136, affd. (2d Cir.1978) 578 F......
-
Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. v. Prince George's County
...at 51-52 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. at 840-41 n. 14. 9See, e.g., Corey v. Look, 641 F.2d 32, 37 (1st Cir.1981); Affiliated Capital Corp. v. City of Houston, 519 F.Supp. 991, 1027-9 (S.D.Tex. 1981), reversed on other grounds 700 F.2d 226 (5th Cir.1983) (panel opinion) 735 F.2d 1555 (5th Cir.1984) (en ......
-
Central Telecommunications, Inc. v. TCI Cablevision, Inc.
...918, 100 S.Ct. 1852, 64 L.Ed.2d 272 (1980); Albrecht v. Herald, 452 F.2d 124 (8th Cir.1971). See also Affiliated Capital Corp. v. City of Houston, 519 F.Supp. 991, 1011 (S.D.Tex.1981), rev'd on other grounds, 735 F.2d 1555 (5th Cir.1984). Central also cites to Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc.......
-
International Wood Processors v. Power Dry, Civ. No. 82-2115-14.
...would receive an opportunity to earn the profits it has already been awarded by the jury. Affiliated Capital Corp. v. City of Houston, 519 F.Supp. 991, 1011 (S.D.Tex.1981), rev'd on other grounds, 700 F.2d 226 (5th Cir.), rehearing granted, 714 F.2d 25 (5th Cir.1983). In essence, plaintiff ......