Glictronix Corp. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.
Decision Date | 04 October 1984 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 82-4447. |
Citation | 603 F. Supp. 552 |
Parties | GLICTRONIX CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Stern, Steiger, Croland & Bornstein by Howard Stern, Paramus, N.J., for plaintiff.
Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch by Dennis R. LaFiura, Morristown, N.J., and Sidley & Austin by George L. Saunders, Jr., Chicago, Ill., and Sidley & Austin by Stewart A. Block, Ronald S. Flagg, Washington, D.C., and Norman E. Gamble, American Tel. & Tel. Co., New York City, for defendants.
Plaintiff Glictronix Corporation filed this action against the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and its other affiliated defendants alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2.
Now pending are plaintiff's motions (1) for class certification and (2) for partial summary judgment to preclude relitigation of issues decided adversely to AT & T in Litton Systems, Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 76 Civ. 2512 (S.D.N.Y.1981), aff'd, 700 F.2d 785 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 984, 79 L.Ed.2d 220 (1984).
Plaintiff, Glictronix Corporation ("Glictronix") a retailer of telephone terminal equipment, alleges that the defendants (hereinafter collectively referred to as "AT & T") engaged in a course of anticompetitive and predatory conduct with respect to the distribution, sale, rental and/or lease of telephone terminal equipment in the geographic markets serviced by the two defendant operating companies, New Jersey Bell Telephone Company and New York Telephone Company. Glictronix alleges that defendants' acts constitute monopolization, attempt to monopolize and conspiracy to monopolize, all in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and a conspiracy to restrain trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
The products at issue in this case are two types of telephone terminal equipment: private branch exchange telephone systems ("PBXs") and key telephone systems ("key systems"). A PBX is used for transmitting and receiving telephone calls and switching such calls to a number of connected individual telephones. A key telephone system is used to connect a single telephone station to telephone trunk lines by manipulation of buttons on the face of the telephone.
Reference to the history of AT & T's control over the telephone terminal equipment market is necessary to an understanding of Glictronix's claims.1 Until 1968, AT & T held an absolute, governmentally recognized monopoly over terminal equipment. It issued tariffs which were filed with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), prohibiting telephone customers from installing any such equipment not obtained from AT & T.2
In 1968, the FCC ruled that these tariffs were unlawful. In the Matter of Use of the Carterfone Device in Message Toll Telephone Service, 13 F.C.C.2d 420, recon. denied, 14 F.C.C.2d 571 (1968). Following this decision, AT & T imposed new tariffs which required that telephone customers who obtained terminal equipment from AT & T's competitors use an "interface device" or "protective connecting arrangement" ("PCA"), to be interposed as a barrier between the AT & T network and the non-AT & T equipment. The PCA had to be leased from and installed by AT & T. The ostensible purpose of the PCA was to protect the network from non-AT & T equipment which might damage it.
The PCA tariff was chosen by AT & T over an alternative method of ensuring protection of the network, namely the development of a system of certification standards. A certification or registration system would regulate the type of equipment which could be connected to the network, and ensure that potentially harmful equipment would not be connected to the network, at least not without protective circuitry.
When AT & T filed the PCA tariff in 1968, the FCC permitted enforcement of the tariff without either approving or disapproving it. Carterfone, supra, 14 F.C.C.2d 571 (1968).
However, in November, 1975, the FCC generally rejected the PCA tariff in favor of a certification system. Proposals for New or Revised Classes of Interstate and Foreign Message Toll Telephone Services (MTS) and Wide Area Telephone Service (WATS), 56 F.C.C.2d 593 (1975). Although excluded from this ruling in 1975, the equipment at issue in this case was later included in the certification program. Interstate and Foreign Toll Telephone Service, 58 F.C.C.2d 736 (1976); Interstate and Foreign MTS and WATS, 67 F.C.C.2d 1255 (1978).
The FCC's 1975 ruling stated in unequivocal terms that the PCA tariff provisions "imposed an unnecessarily restrictive limitation" and "constituted an unjust and unreasonable discrimination both among users.... and among suppliers of terminal equipment." After cataloging the extensive reports, recommendations and other material the FCC had considered, the filing also concluded that "there has been no demonstration of network harm resulting from the interconnected operation of some 1600 independent local telephone companies and the Bell System ... many of whom purchase and connect without benefit of carrier-supplied connecting arrangements the identical independently manufactured terminal equipment for which the individual user must lease carrier-supplied connecting arrangements." Proposals for New or Revised Classes of Interstate and Foreign Message Toll Telephone Service (MTS) and Wide Area Telephone Service (WATS), 56 F.C.C.2d 593, 598 (1975) (first Report & Order). In affirming the FCC's extension of a certification system to PBXs and key systems which had their own protective circuitry, the Fourth Circuit termed the PCA requirement an attempt to preserve "the carriers' private lawmaking authority over independent manufacturers." North Carolina Utilities Commission v. F.C.C., 552 F.2d 1036, 1051 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 874, 98 S.Ct. 222, 54 L.Ed.2d 154 (1977).
Even after these decisions, PCAs are still required for equipment that does not meet FCC registration standards and for equipment which is not properly installed. Interstate and Foreign MTS and WATS, supra, 67 F.C.C.2d at 1256, 1272 n. 21.
Glictronix alleges that AT & T violated § 2 of the Sherman Act, by adopting the PCA tariff and opposing the adoption of certification standards. It alleges that AT & T's imposition of the PCA tariff was unlawful in light of the alleged facts that:
AT & T contends that the equipment included under the headings of PBXs and key systems is diverse. It claims that the design and functions of PBXs vary greatly, with different variations handling from fewer than 30 to thousands of telephone lines. During the relevant period, PBXs could operate through "radically different technologies." The generic term "key telephone system" also encompasses a wide variety of equipment having varying capacities and using varying technologies. Glictronix marketed only a few of the many PBX and key systems in existence during the relevant period. (Glick Dep. at 91-93). Glictronix concentrated its sales efforts on customers seeking equipment for fewer than 200 lines (Id. at 96).
AT & T asserts that these different makes and models of PBXs and key systems possessed different potentials for causing harm to the AT & T network. As noted by AT & T, even when the FCC permitted direct connection of PBXs and key systems to the network in 1978, it ruled that PCAs would continue to be required for equipment that did not conform to registration standards, 67 F.C.C.2d 1255, 1272 n. 21 (1978).
One difference among various makes and models of PBXs and key systems found significant by the FCC in its registration orders was the ability of the power supply transformer to prevent power surges from passing through the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schwab v. Wood, Civ. A. No. 88-657 MMS.
...fair opportunity to litigate the issue to be precluded in the prior state criminal proceeding); Glictronix Corp. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 603 F.Supp. 552, 574 (D.N.J.1984). The defendants did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the reasonable suspicion issue i......
-
Eason v. Linden Avionics, Inc.
...(iii) the issue was actually litigated (or finally resolved) and necessary to the prior judgment. See Glictronix Corp. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 603 F.Supp. 552, 565 (D.N.J.1984). After addressing these factors, a determination must be made as to whether preclusion would be fair. Did the......
-
Curley v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc.
...in the complaint to determine whether plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Rule 23. Glictronix Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph, Co., 603 F.Supp. 552, 584 (D.N.J.1984) (citation omitted). Out of fairness to potential members of the class who may have their claims extinguished ......
-
In re ORFA Securities Litigation
...question does not pertain to the merits of a cause of action, but only the requirements of Rule 23, Glictronix Corp. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 603 F.Supp. 552, 584 (D.N.J.1984), here the court must look far enough to determine if the cause of action survives a motion to dismi......
-
Collateral Estoppel and Prima Facie Effect
...estoppel problematic.”); Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. United States, 981 F.2d 245, 255 (D.C. Cir. 1992); see also Glictronix Corp. v. AT&T, 603 F. Supp. 552, 567 (D.N.J. 1984) (judgments are conclusive as to all independent grounds on which they may be based, and the existence of two or more grou......
-
Antitrust Class Certification Standards
...services of beer distributors “results in a conflict that goes to the merits of this litigation”); Glictronix Corp. v. AT&T Co., 603 F. Supp. 552, 586 (D.N.J. 1984) (“where the class members are competitors in a limited market [and] the named plaintiff’s attempts to maximize its damage reco......
-
Table of cases
...Transp. Co., 596 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2010), 236 Glazer v. Whirlpool Corp., 722 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2013), 203 Glictronix Corp. v. AT&T, 603 F. Supp. 552 (D.N.J. 1984), 153 Global Minerals & Metals Corp. v. Superior Court, 7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 28 (Ct. App. 2003), 64, 239, 408 Goda v. Abbott Labs., 1......
-
Table of Cases
...WL 20581 (4th Cir. Aug. 13, 2000), 128 Glastetter v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 252 F.3d 986 (8th Cir. 2001), 201 Glictronix Corp. v. AT&T, 603 F. Supp. 552 (D.N.J. 1984), 251 Glover v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., No. 11-2808, 2013 WL 3974533 (E.D. La. Aug. 2, 2013), 96 Gloves, Inc. v. Berger, 198......