Marder v. Food Fair Stores, Civ. A. No. 20330.

• Decision Date: 30 December 1957
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 20330.
• Parties: Harry MARDER, trading as Brigantine Market, v. FOOD FAIR STORES, Inc., American Stores, Inc., City Stores Company, Gold Trading Stamp Company, The Sperry and Hutchinson Company.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

157 F. Supp. 553

Harry MARDER, trading as Brigantine Market, v. FOOD FAIR STORES, Inc., American Stores, Inc., City Stores Company, Gold Trading Stamp Company, The Sperry and Hutchinson Company.

Civ. A. No. 20330.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

December 30, 1957.

Martin Feldman, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Norman M. Kranzdorf, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Clark, Ladner, Fortenbaugh & Young, Folz, Bard, Kamsler, Goodis & Greenfield, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

EGAN, District Judge.

This is a motion for security for costs on behalf of the various defendants, pursuant to Rule 9, Section 1 of the Rules of this Court, a copy of which appears in the margin.¹

Plaintiff is a citizen of New Jersey who operates a retail food market in Brigantine, N. J. He has filed a complaint against the various defendants alleging violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-7, 15 note.

The complaint was filed on March 2, 1956, service being made on the 20th of that month. The motions for security for costs were filed between October 10th and October 16th of 1957—more than eighteen months subsequent to the institution of the action. In the interim, substantial activity has taken place in the litigation of this matter—(answers, interrogatories, answers to interrogatories, depositions, motions for judgment on the pleadings, etc.).

It is plaintiff's position in opposition to this motion, that the defendants waived their rights because of their failure to move for the security within a reasonable time.

In Clair v. Philadelphia Storage Battery Co., D.C.E.D.Pa.1939, 29 F. Supp. 299, 300, in discharging the rule on the basis that plaintiff had not admitted her inability to pay costs, the Court stated:

"The Rule is for the benefit of the defendant. If not invoked it may be deemed to have been waived. It would be hard lines for a plaintiff who has been led to prepare a case for trial to be * * * non-suited because of a failure to give security."

We feel that this is a fair statement of the waiver aspect of the Rule. And although the defendants would have us disregard that case because the facts differ from the instant situation, the observations made by that Court seem pertinent and for this reason are adopted by us.

The movants cite Zeth v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C.E.D.Pa.1947, 7 F.R. D. 612, a case where the motion was granted, as controlling. Because, as the Zeth case points out, the matter is discretionary with the trial court, and because of its basic factual difference with the instant case (two months delay, as opposed to an eighteen month delay), we feel that our decision today is not bound by that...