Heart Disease Research Found. v. General Motors Corp., 763
| Decision Date | 05 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 763,Docket 72-1259.,763 |
| Citation | 463 F.2d 98 |
| Parties | HEART DISEASE RESEARCH FOUNDATION, a Charitable Trust of the State of New York, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORP. et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
I. Walton Bader, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Simon H. Rifkind, New York City (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Jay H. Topkis, New York City, on the brief), for General Motors Corp.
Robert Ehrenbard, New York City (Kelley, Drye, Warren, Clark, Carr & Ellis, New York City, on the brief), for Chrysler Corporation.
Wright Tisdale, Dearborn, Mich., for Ford Motor Co.
Walter J. Williams, Detroit, Mich., for American Motors Sales Corp.
Before LEVENTHAL,* FEINBERG and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs Heart Disease Research Foundation, a charitable trust, and Robert R. Peters and Henry Sassone, two of the Foundation's trustees, appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Harold R. Tyler, Jr., J., dismissing plaintiffs' amended complaint against General Motors Corp., Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Co. and American Motors Sales Corp. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of "the population of the United States residing in the metropolitan areas of the United States, amounting to approximately 125,000,000 persons."1 The amended complaint contains three counts: Count 1 alleges that defendants have committed antitrust violations by conspiring to suppress the development of motor vehicle pollution control devices; jurisdiction is grounded on the antitrust laws, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, 15. Count 2 purports to add another cause of action "pursuant to common law principles of liability"; jurisdiction is based on "the `general welfare' provisions of the Constitution of the United States. . . ." Count 3 asserts that the "United States Government is significantly involved in the production, manufacture and distribution of motor vehicles by reason of . . . its substantial purchases of motor vehicles . . ." and that such "continued purchase and operation of present motor vehicles . . . is adversely affecting the environment of the United States"; jurisdiction for this "claim" is premised on the "Environmental Quality Act," not otherwise identified. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages of "one hundred twenty five trillion dollars (trebled to three hundred and seventy five trillion dollars with respect to Count One)" and an attorney's fee of $3,000,000. Judge Tyler dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it failed to state any claims upon which relief could be granted and that plaintiffs' attorney failed to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.2 We affirm on the former ground.
Counts 2 and 3 of the complaint do not allege the essential elements of any cause of action. The purported jurisdictional basis for the former—the "general welfare" clause—is frivolous. As to count 3, plaintiffs now claim that "the sufficiency of this count need not be considered at this time" since count 2 "is also specifically bottomed on the `Clean Air Act.'" This assertion is typical of the sloppy, scattershot manner in which this complaint was thrown together. Count 2 does not mention the "Clean Air Act." Neither does count 3 for that matter. The latter does refer to the "Environmental Quality Act," which Judge Tyler understandably took to mean the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. § 4371 et seq. Plaintiffs now tell us they really were referring to 42 U.S.C. § 1857, which the complaint nowhere mentions and which requires, in any event, allegations as yet unmade. Plaintiffs also now argue that count 2 is actually a nuisance or negligence action based...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Telectronics Proprietary, Ltd. v. Medtronic, Inc.
...of conspiracy or of injury under the antitrust laws without any supporting facts permits dismissal." Heart Disease Research Found. v. General Motors Corp., 463 F.2d 98, 100 (2d Cir.1972).7 A generous reading of Medtronic's pleading indicates that the "anticompetitive" concerted action Telec......
-
Granite Partners, L.P. v. Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.
...(S.D.N.Y.1990); see Garshman v. Universal Resources Holding Inc., 824 F.2d 223, 230 (3d Cir.1987); Heart Disease Research Found. v. General Motors Corp., 463 F.2d 98, 100 (2d Cir.1972). For example, the plaintiff must identify the relevant market, the co-conspirators, and describe the natur......
-
City of Gainesville v. Florida Power & Light Co.
...agree that a conclusory allegation of an antitrust violation will not suffice. See, e. g., Heart Disease Research Foundation v. General Motors Corp., 463 F.2d 98 (2d Cir. 1972); SCM Corp. v. Radio Corporation of America, 407 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 1969); Wright & Miller, supra ? 1228 at 170; 2A ......
-
US v. Bonanno Organized Crime Family
...to form a response. See Ostrer v. Aronwald, 567 F.2d 551, 553 (2d Cir. 1977) (per curiam); Heart Disease Research Foundation v. General Motors Corp., 463 F.2d 98, 100 (2d Cir.1972); Waller v. Butkovich, 584 F.Supp. 909, 931 (M.D.N.C.1984); Cairo v. Skow, 510 F.Supp. 201, 206 (E.D.Wisc.1981)......
-
Table of Cases
...2d 1250 (W.D. Wash. 2009), 65 , 105 HBE Leasing Corp. v. Frank, 22 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1994), 275 Heart Disease Research Found v. Gen Motors, 463 F.2d 98 (2d Cir. 1972), 177 Helicopter Support Sys. v. Hughes Helicopter, 818 F.2d 1530 (11th Cir. 1987), 46 Hennessey v. NCAA, 564 F.2d 1136 (5th C......
-
Initial Pleading
...quotation marks and brackets omitted) (quoting Crane & Shovel Sales Corp. v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 854 F.2d 802, 805 (6th Cir. 1988)). 27 . 463 F.2d 98 (2d Cir. 1972). 28 . Id . at 100. 29 . Id. 30 . See, e.g. , Mountain View Pharm. v. Abbott Labs., 630 F.2d 1383, 1388 (10th Cir. 1980) (“A blan......
-
Rumors of Conley's demise have been greatly exaggerated: the impact of Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly on pleading standards in environmental litigation.
...antitrust laws without any supporting facts permits dismissal.'" Id. at 180 (quoting Heart Disease Research Found. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 463 F.2d 98, 100 (2d Cir. (196) Id. at 189. An interesting problem potentially arises here, because plaintiffs are permitted to plead in the alternative, ......
-
Rational pleading in the modern world of civil litigation: the lessons and public policy benefits of Twombly and Iqbal.
...to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim." (citation omitted)); Heart Disease Research Found. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 463 F.2d 98, 100 (2d Cir. 1972) (stating that "a bare bones statement of conspiracy or of injury under the antitrust laws without any supporting facts permit......