Caraway v. Ford Motor Company
| Decision Date | 11 September 1956 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 10441. |
| Citation | 144 F. Supp. 295 |
| Parties | Floyd M. CARAWAY, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a corporation, Rudy Fick and Berl Berry, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Robert L. Jackson, Dean C. Allard, George V. Aylward, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.
Lathrop, Richter, Blackwell & Parker, and Kuraner, Freeman, Kuraner & Oberlander, Kansas City, Mo., for defendants.
On May 25, 1956, in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, at Kansas City, plaintiff filed his action comprising two counts against the Ford Motor Company, Rudy Fick and Berl Berry. In the first count, he alleges violations by defendants of provisions of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Clayton Act, Title 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-7, 12 et seq. and, in the second count, alleges fraudulent misrepresentations made by defendants to plaintiff for which they are liable in damages.
On June 13, 1956, defendants removed the cause to this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(b), providing for removal of civil actions of which district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States. Defendant Ford Motor Company, on June 15, 1956, and defendants Fick and Berry, on June 19, 1956, filed their separate motions to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, on the grounds that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of Count One; that Counts One and Two fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and that Count One is barred by the applicable statute of limitations of the State of Illinois.
The Court addresses itself to defendants' motion to dismiss Count One of plaintiff's complaint. Count One seeks to establish liability of defendants for violation of Title 15 U.S.C.A., more particularly Sections 1 to 15, and alleges that defendants unlawfully combined to, and did, discriminate against him and his interest in Safety Motors, Inc., a corporation engaged in the retail sales of Ford automobiles in Chicago, Illinois.
Section 15 of Title 15 U.S.C.A., vests District Courts with exclusive jurisdiction of federal antitrust actions. It was intended to provide broader and more effective relief, both substantively and procedurally, for persons and corporations injured by violations of the antitrust laws, by enlarging the remedies provided under those laws and enabling persons and corporations to maintain suits for damages sustained as a result of violations. This right to sue granted under Section 15 is to be exercised only in a "district court of the United States". Section 15, Title 15 U.S.C.A. This case was brought, however, in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, and in so far as its purpose was to redress violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Clayton Act that court could not entertain it. General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. Co., 260 U.S. 261, 43 S.Ct. 106, 67 L.Ed. 244; Freeman v. Bee Machine Co., 319 U.S. 448, 63 S.Ct. 1146, 87 L.Ed. 1509; D. E. Loewe & Co. v. Lawler, C.C.Conn., 130 F. 633; United Artists Corp. v. Ancore Amusement Corp., D.C.N.Y., 91 F.Supp. 132; Leonia Amusement Corp. v. Loew's Inc., D.C.N.Y., 117 F.Supp. 747.
As the state court was without jurisdiction over the subject matter, this Court cannot acquire jurisdiction over it by virtue of the removal. "The jurisdiction of the federal court on removal is, in a limited sense, a derivative jurisdiction." Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 258 U.S. 377, 42 S.Ct. 349, 351, 66 L.Ed. 671.
If the state court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter, the federal court, upon removal, acquires none, although it might in a like suit, originally brought there, have had jurisdiction. In General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co., supra 260 U.S. 261, 43 S.Ct. 117, Judge Van Devanter said:
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loew's, Inc. v. Don George, Inc., 43617
...a reasonable attorney's fee.' In United Artists Corp. v. Ancore Amusement Corp., D.C., 91 F.Supp. 132, and Caraway v. Ford Motor Company, D.C., 144 F.Supp. 295, 296, the courts held that the above section vests the federal district courts with exclusive jurisdiction of federal anti-trust 'S......
-
Pliler v. Asiatic Petroleum Company (Texas), Ltd., Civ. A. No. 12041.
...v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 5 Cir., 1957, 239 F.2d 569; Block v. Block, 7 Cir., 1952, 196 F.2d 930; Caraway v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.W.D.Mo.1956, 144 F.Supp. 295.6 The following quotations state the proper Wilson v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., D.C.W.D.Mo.1961, 101 F.Supp. 56, ......
-
Electronic Race Patrol, Inc. v. National Trailer Convoy, Inc.
...an original matter. Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 258 U.S. 377, 42 S.Ct. 349, 66 L.Ed. 671; Caraway v. Ford Motor Company, D.C. W.D.Mo.W.D., 144 F.Supp. 295. Under the New York law, suits may be maintained against a foreign corporation by another foreign corporation in on......
-
Travis Equipment Co. v. D & L Construction Co. & Associates
...none, although in a like suit originally brought in a federal court it would have had jurisdiction". See also Caraway v. Ford Motor Co., W.D.Mo.1956, 144 F. Supp. 295, for the most recent reported application of that established principle by a judge of this Minnesota v. United States also h......