ALAMO THEATRE COMPANY v. LOEW'S INCORPORATED, 56 C 156.
| Decision Date | 15 June 1956 |
| Docket Number | 56 C 156. |
| Citation | 143 F. Supp. 419 |
| Parties | ALAMO THEATRE COMPANY, Inc. v. LOEW'S INCORPORATED, a corporation, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Thomas C. McConnell, Edward R. Johnston, Chicago, Ill., for Balaban & Katz, Samuel Black, Wesley E. Hall, American Broadcasting Co. and Paramount.
Thomas A. Reynolds, Chicago, Ill., for Buena Vista Film Distributing Co.
Francis E. Matthews, Chicago, Ill., for Twentieth Century Fox Film.
Miles G. Seeley, Chicago, Ill., for Loew's Inc.
LA BUY, District Judge.
The above action is brought to recover damages suffered through an alleged conspiracy violative of the anti-trust laws of the United States. The court has read the briefs of the parties with respect to defendants' motions to strike paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 16 and 17 of the complaint.
Paragraph 9 of the complaint alleges that these defendants or their predecessors sometime prior to 1933 illegally conspired to restrain trade and commerce in the distribution of motion picture films; paragraph 10 describes the maintenance of a uniform system of releasing motion pictures in pursuance of that conspiracy by a so-called Chicago system of release; paragraph 11 refers to the entry of a decree in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on October 16, 1946 in the matter of Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., et al., enjoining certain of these defendants from licensing motion pictures in the manner previously described.
It appears from the complaint that the plaintiff commenced operation of its theatre on January 1, 1947 and that in pursuance of the conspiracy described in paragraphs 9 and 10 the defendants "subsequently devised a system of releasing pictures through zones as is more fully described hereinafter. The court is of the opinion that paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the complaint should be stricken for the reason that they relate to historical matter not pertinent to the matters here complained of by the plaintiff. Insofar as paragraph 11 refers to the decree entered in the Bigelow case, the court is of the opinion it should be stricken for the additional reason that it creates no estoppel between the present parties.
Allegations are made in paragraph 16 referring to the entry of the decree in 1946 in United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., and later orders by that court and the Supreme Court. Paragraph 17 alleges that the plaintiff intends to rely thereon as prima facie evidence of the allegations set forth in the present complaint as permitted under 15 U.S.C.A. § 16. Defendants contend that as to some of them said decree cannot be so used since they are not parties defendant in that action or were not in existence at the time of that suit; also, that the period of the conspiracy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co.
...complaint a simple allegation of the entry of the decree and of plaintiffs' intention to rely on it." In Alamo Theatre Company, Inc. v, Loew's Incorporated, D.C., 143 F.Supp. 419, a motion to strike was continued because the Court (Judge LaBuy) thought the relevance should await its use, if......
-
Gottesman v. General Motors Corporation
...442-445 (2d Cir. 1957), aff'd by an equally divided Court, 358 U.S. 100, 79 S.Ct. 218, 3 L.Ed.2d 147 (1958); Alamo Theatre Co. v. Loew's Inc., 143 F.Supp. 419 (N.D.Ill.1956); Buckhead Theatre Co. v. Atlanta Enterprises, Inc., 327 F.2d 365 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 888, 85 S.Ct. 158......
-
Gottesman v. General Motors Corporation
...proceedings have been completed, and court and counsel are ready to frame the issues for trial. See, e. g., Alamo Theatre Co. v. Loew's, Inc., 143 F.Supp. 419 (N.D.Ill.1956). However, a different approach is necessary in this case in order to define the scope of deposition-discovery procedu......
- Prentiss v. Taylor, 308.