Grand Opera Co. v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., No. 11663
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | MAJOR, LINDLEY and SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit |
| Citation | 235 F.2d 303 |
| Parties | GRAND OPERA CO. v. TWENTIETH CENTURY-FOX FILM CORP. |
| Docket Number | No. 11663,11664. |
| Decision Date | 16 July 1956 |
235 F.2d 303 (1956)
GRAND OPERA CO.
v.
TWENTIETH CENTURY-FOX FILM CORP.
No. 11663, 11664.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
July 16, 1956.
Thomas C. McConnell, Chicago, Ill., Everett Prosser, Carbondale, Ill., William M. Wolff, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Harold G. Baker, John M. Ferguson, Saul E. Cohn, East St. Louis, Ill., Walter R. Mayne, St. Louis, Mo., R. E. Costello, Leigh M. Kagy, East St. Louis, Ill., for Fox Midwest Amusement Corp. Baker, Kagy & Wagner, East St. Louis, Ill., of counsel.
Fred W. Schwarz, St. Louis, Mo., for Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., and others. Fordyce, Mayne, Hartman, Renard & Stribling, St. Louis, Mo., Kramer, Campbell, Costello & Wiechert, East St. Louis, Ill., of counsel.
Before MAJOR, LINDLEY and SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judges.
SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.
On November 18, 1955 plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from an order entered by the district court on October 24, 1955, which dismissed plaintiffs' amended complaint on the ground that it did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The amended complaint was filed February 25, 1955 and consists of four counts.
In count I, Grand Opera Company, a corporation, plaintiff, complains of Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation; Warner Bros. Pictures Distributing Corporation; Universal Film Exchange, Inc.; Paramount Film Distributing Corporation; Allied Artists Pictures, Inc.; Republic Pictures Corporation; RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.; Loew's Incorporated; United Artists Corporation; Columbia Pictures Corporation,1 and Fox Midwest Amusement Corporation, and alleges that Grand Opera Company has since 1917 owned and operated Marlow's Theater in Herrin, Williamson County, Illinois; that Marlow's is a large modern building with 1,400 seats, equipped to exhibit feature first-run motion pictures, is located in Herrin's business district, and has a drawing potential from among persons residing within a radius of 25 miles.
It is further alleged that Fox Midwest Amusement Corporation2 operates theaters
It is also alleged that, beginning in the year 1951 and continuing to the present time, the plaintiff has been forced by the producing and distributing corporations to bid competitively for first-run feature pictures with the Egyptian Drive-In Theater, located about 5 miles from the city of Herrin; that all first-run feature pictures offered to plaintiff were subject to said limited competitive bidding, with the result that the plaintiff was required to bid against one of its competitors but was not allowed to bid against its other competitors in the established competitive trade area, said other competitors being the theaters owned and operated by Fox Midwest, and that upon the institution of this limited bidding practice, and continuing to the present time, the plaintiff has made request of each and every one of the producing and distributing corporations, for the right to bid competitively for first-run pictures, not only against the Egyptian Drive-In Theater, but against all other first-run feature theaters in its trade area, which includes the theaters owned and operated by Fox Midwest. It is also alleged that such requests were either ignored or denied. The count sets forth that this system of unlawfully imposed limited bidding unreasonably favors said plaintiff's competitor, granting such competitor dominance in obtaining first-run pictures, with the intent to deprive the plaintiff of business, and to injure plaintiff, and is a violation of the antitrust laws cited; that the illegal system created by the restricted and limited bidding practices, which leaves free from "competitive bidding" other competing theaters in the trade area, was a discrimination against the plaintiff and was and is an unlawful restraint of trade in interstate commerce, creates and continues to be an economic burden on said plaintiff, and has given an economic advantage to Fox Midwest, and that said system was set up by virtue of a conspiracy which existed between the defendants named in the amended complaint.3
Said plaintiff charges that, as a result, it has suffered losses to the extent of $300,000, and it therefore seeks treble damages and attorneys' fees and costs.
Count II asserts that Marlow's Amusement Corporation, another plaintiff, owns and operates Marlow's Drive-In Theater, near Herrin, and has so owned and operated it since May 7, 1949; that it is a modern drive-in theater accommodating 1,000 cars, being one of the finest in southern Illinois.
This count realleges the conspiracy and discrimination allegations of count I and charges that as a result...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russo v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc., No. 82 C 4219.
...be considered in resolving a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(6). Grand Opera Co. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 235 F.2d 303, 307 (7th Cir.1956). We therefore base this decision solely on the 7 Count I of the complaint seeks punitive damages. Plaintiffs, however, in......
-
United States v. City of Chicago, No. 73 C 2080
...Nor do Chicago Housing Tenants Organization, Inc. v. CHA, 512 F.2d 19 (7th Cir. 1975); Grand Opera Co. v. 20th Century-Fox Film Corp., 235 F.2d 303 (7th Cir. 1956), and Lloyd v. Lawrence, 60 F.R.D. 116 (S.D.Tex.1973), relied upon by the City defendants, suggest let alone require a different......
-
Taylor v. Mcnichols, Nos. 36130, 36131.
...of facts of common knowledge which controvert averments of the complaint. See Grand Opera Co. v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 235 F.2d 303 (7th Cir.1956); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. [ Metro.] Engravers, Ltd., 245 F.2d 67 (9th Cir.1956); Schwartz v. Commonwealth Land Title [ Ins.] Co., 374......
-
Zeller v. Donegal School Dist. Bd. of Ed., No. 72-1009
...well-pleaded allegations of the complaint, as the district court did in this case. Grand Opera Co. v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 235 F.2d 303 (7th Cir. A distinction between this case and Wood reinforces my conclusion that that case cannot be relied on to dispose of the complaint of ......
-
Zeller v. Donegal School Dist. Bd. of Ed., No. 72-1009
...well-pleaded allegations of the complaint, as the district court did in this case. Grand Opera Co. v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 235 F.2d 303 (7th Cir. A distinction between this case and Wood reinforces my conclusion that that case cannot be relied on to dispose of the complaint of ......
-
Russo v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc., No. 82 C 4219.
...be considered in resolving a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(6). Grand Opera Co. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 235 F.2d 303, 307 (7th Cir.1956). We therefore base this decision solely on the 7 Count I of the complaint seeks punitive damages. Plaintiffs, however, in......
-
United States v. City of Chicago, No. 73 C 2080
...Nor do Chicago Housing Tenants Organization, Inc. v. CHA, 512 F.2d 19 (7th Cir. 1975); Grand Opera Co. v. 20th Century-Fox Film Corp., 235 F.2d 303 (7th Cir. 1956), and Lloyd v. Lawrence, 60 F.R.D. 116 (S.D.Tex.1973), relied upon by the City defendants, suggest let alone require a different......
-
Taylor v. Mcnichols, Nos. 36130, 36131.
...of facts of common knowledge which controvert averments of the complaint. See Grand Opera Co. v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 235 F.2d 303 (7th Cir.1956); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. [ Metro.] Engravers, Ltd., 245 F.2d 67 (9th Cir.1956); Schwartz v. Commonwealth Land Title [ Ins.] Co., 374......