David Orgell, Inc. v. Geary's Stores, Inc., 79-3108
| Decision Date | 19 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-3108,79-3108 |
| Citation | 640 F.2d 936 |
| Parties | 1981-1 Trade Cases 63,941 DAVID ORGELL, INC., Appellant, v. GEARY'S STORES, INC.; Baccarat, Inc.; Buccelatti, Inc., and Ceralene, Inc., Defendants, and Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Bernard Reich, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Roy L. Shults, and Edward M. Medvene, Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before CHAMBERS and TANG, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, * District Judge.
David Orgell, Inc. (Orgell) appeals from a summary judgment for Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Inc. (Wedgwood). We affirm.
Orgell owns several retail stores which sell silver, china, and crystal in the Los Angeles area. Wedgwood sells china, dinnerware, and jasperware to retail stores in many parts of the world. Orgell's principal competitor in Beverly Hills is Geary's Stores, Inc. (Geary's), one of Wedgwood's customers. Orgell contends that Wedgwood refused to sell to Orgell as the result of a conspiracy between Wedgwood and Geary's.
Wedgwood first refused to sell to Orgell in 1965. It again refused to sell to Orgell in 1968. In 1972, Orgell retained a well-known Los Angeles law firm which wrote Wedgwood that its refusal to sell to Orgell had antitrust implications. Wedgwood's attorney denied that Orgell had any grounds for complaint. On at least two occasions in 1976 and 1977, Orgell requested the opportunity to buy the Wedgwood line, but both times Wedgwood refused to sell.
On April 16, 1978, Orgell filed this action in the district court. It alleged that Wedgwood together with Geary's had violated Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15, 26, and Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.
Wedgwood filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion on the ground that Orgell had not "commenced suit within four years after the cause of action accrued." Section 4B of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15b.
In this appeal, Orgell concedes a four year statute of limitations but it contends that this period had not elapsed because each of Wedgwood's refusals to sell was a separate antitrust violation.
In In re Multidistrict Vehicle Air Pollution v. General Motors Corp., 591 F.2d 68 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 900, 100 S.Ct. 210, 62 L.Ed.2d 136 (1980), a manufacturer of air pollution control devices brought an action against several automobile manufacturers alleging a conspiracy to refuse to purchase the plaintiff's product. The plaintiff filed its action more than four years after the initial refusal to deal but alleged that the statute of limitations did not apply because each subsequent refusal created a new cause of action. The court rejected that argument, stating:
Nothing in the record indicates other than that the 1964 decisions, as to AMF, were irrevocable, immutable, permanent and final. For this reason, all injury to AMF necessarily...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
PBTM LLC v. Football Nw., LLC
...refusals to trade were merely "reaffirmation[s] of the original decision not to deal with the plaintiff." David Orgell, Inc. v. Geary's Stores, Inc. , 640 F.2d 936 (9th Cir. 1981) ; see also Garrison v. Oracle Corporation , 159 F. Supp. 3d 1044 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (Hiring new employees and sup......
-
West Penn Allegheny Health Sys. Inc. v. Upmc
...Poster Exch., Inc. v. Nat'l Screen Serv. Corp., 517 F.2d 117, 127-28 (5th Cir.1975). But see, e.g., David Orgell, Inc. v. Geary's Stores, Inc., 640 F.2d 936, 937-38 (9th Cir.1981). Taken together, Hanover Shoe and Lower Lake Erie leave no room for Highmark's proposed rule. In each case, the......
-
Kotev v. First Colony Life Ins. Co.
...in which a mere "reaffirmation of a previous act" was held not to restart the statute of limitations. In David Orgell, Inc. v. Geary's Stores, Inc., 640 F.2d 936 (9th Cir.1981), the Ninth Circuit held an action based on the defendant's subsequent refusals to sell china to the plaintiff to b......
-
Telecomm Technical Serv. V. Siemens Rolm Commun.
...Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 401 U.S. 321, 328, 91 S.Ct. 795, 806, 28 L.Ed.2d 77 (1971). Defendant, citing David Orgell, Inc. v. Geary's Stores, Inc., 640 F.2d 936 (9th Cir.1981) and Midwestern Waffles, Inc. v. Waffle House, Inc., 734 F.2d 705 (11th Cir.1984), argues that a statement of a d......
-
Statute of Limitations
...are at that time provable with certainty, the statute of limitations begins to run at that time.”); David Orgell, Inc. v. Geary’s Stores, 640 F.2d 936, 938 (9th Cir. 1981) (subsequent refusals to sell did not restart the limitations period). But see Bell v. Dow Chem. Co., 847 F.2d 1179, 118......
-
Table of Cases
...F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2008), 312 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), 210, 212 David Orgell, Inc. v. Geary’s Stores, 640 F.2d 936 (9th Cir. 1981), 68 Dee-K Enters. v. Heveafil Sdn. Bhd., 982 F. Supp. 1138 (E.D. Va. 1997), 47 Table of Cases 359 Delaware Valley Surgical Su......