Gatch v. Hennepin Broadcasting Associates, Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 October 1972
• Docket Number: No. 4-72 Civ. 424.,4-72 Civ. 424.
• Citation: 349 F. Supp. 1180
• Parties: Marvin GATCH, Plaintiff, v. HENNEPIN BROADCASTING ASSOCIATES, INC., doing business as KTCR and KTCR-FM, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

349 F. Supp. 1180

Marvin GATCH, Plaintiff, v. HENNEPIN BROADCASTING ASSOCIATES, INC., doing business as KTCR and KTCR-FM, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant.

No. 4-72 Civ. 424.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Fourth Division.

October 7, 1972.

Larry B. Leventhal, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff.

James Malcolm Williams, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant.

NEVILLE, District Judge.

This case comes before the court by way of removal from the Minnesota District Court of Hennepin County. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he is a radio broadcaster conducting a "personality talk-radio-host and commentator show" in the Twin Cities area; that he has a contract to do so with Arrow Broadcasting Company, Inc., which in turn has purchased under a contract certain broadcasting time from the defendant radio station KTCR and KTCR-FM, a duly licensed radio station in Hennepin County, Minnesota; that while both contracts were in full force and effect he was cut off the air on several occasions without justification or excuse and not allowed to broadcast. Plaintiff himself has no direct contract with the defendant radio station but sues it in tort for alleged "illegal and unwarranted interference with defendant's contractual relation" with Arrow Broadcasting Company, Inc. The latter is not a party-defendant in this lawsuit. The complaint does not purport to and does not allege the presence of any federal question as such does not assert the violation of any federal statute and refers only quite incidentally to rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission with which he alleges full compliance.

The defendant has filed a one-page answer in the form of a general denial. At the hearing on the motion, however, its counsel orally asserted the defenses (1) that Arrow Broadcasting Company was and is delinquent in the amount of some $7,000 to $8,000 in its contract payments due defendant; (2) that before any lawsuit can be commenced in any event plaintiff is required to exhaust and has not exhausted his administrative remedies before the Federal Communications Commission or some other appropriate administrative agency; (3) that plaintiff's program was entitled "smut-talk" and engendered certain sex-oriented responses and caused unfavorable and unsavory publicity for the radio station, possibly putting its Federal Communications license in jeopardy if obscene talk and conversations were permitted to be broadcast over its station. This is the only alleged Federal...