Nagoya Associates, Inc. v. Esquire, Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 January 1961
• Citation: 191 F. Supp. 379
• Parties: NAGOYA ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff, v. ESQUIRE, INC., Ziff-Davis Publishing Co., H. M. H. Publishing Co., Inc., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

191 F. Supp. 379

NAGOYA ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff, v. ESQUIRE, INC., Ziff-Davis Publishing Co., H. M. H. Publishing Co., Inc., Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

January 26, 1961.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges, New York City, and Folz, Bard, Kamsler, Goodis & Greenfield, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, for defendant Esquire, Inc., Stephen E. O'Neil, New York City, of counsel.

Rosen, Seton & Sarbin, New York City, for defendant Ziff-Davis Pub. Co., Joseph M. Cohen, Charles B. Seton, Leonard Sacks, New York City, of counsel.

Squadron, Alter & Weinrib, New York City, for defendant H. M. H. Publishing Co., Inc., Howard M. Squadron, Hubert Thurschwell, New York City, of counsel.

DIMOCK, District Judge.

Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that it fails to comply with the order dismissing the original complaint and that it fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted.

The action is one for disparagement of product and is based on the appearance in various issues of defendants' magazines of advertisements of a metal phonograph record rack manufactured by John Leslie, Jr., a competitor of plaintiff. It is alleged that these advertisements disparaged the quality of plaintiff's metal record rack. The allegedly disparaging advertisements (hereinafter referred to as the "Leslie advertisements") featured drawings of two record racks, one having four legs and the other having eight legs. The eight-legged rack appeared faultless while the four-legged rack was shown to be sagging although only partly loaded. The language describing the depicted racks in the various Leslie advertisements expressed praise for the eight-legged rack and disapproval of the four-legged rack. Advertisements of plaintiff's product appeared in the same issues of defendants' magazines in which the allegedly offending advertisements were published. Plaintiff's advertisements offered a rack for sale and contained a drawing showing that it was four-legged. The advertisements stated that the rack would hold 250 records.

Since the original complaint was dismissed on its face, in determining whether or not the amended complaint complies with the conditions under which leave to amend was granted in the order of dismissal, I may consider only the face of the amended complaint, the face of the original complaint and the terms of the order dismissing it. With only these papers before me, I find that the amended complaint does comply with the terms imposed by the order of dismissal.

The order of dismissal, filed August 30, 1960, provided:

"(1) the complaint is dismissed with leave to serve an amended complaint within 20 days separately stating each claim against each defendant; and

"(2) in the amended complaint, the times and places of each publication of alleged disparaging advertisements must be stated with particularity."

Plaintiff has particularized as well as the subject matter permits "the times and places of each publication" by alleging in its amended complaint that the Leslie advertisements were published "in all states of the United States" and by specifying the monthly issues of defendants' magazines in which each of the Leslie advertisements appeared.

Plaintiff in its amended complaint also fulfills the condition in the order of dismissal that it state separately "each claim against each defendant". The damages sought from each defendant are separately stated and the claims are set forth as follows in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the amended complaint:

"9. The aforesaid disparaging statements in advertising have appeared as follows in defendants' publications:

"(a) `Hi Fi Review' — July 1959, page 80 — August 1959, page 80 — September, 1959, page 114 — October 1959, page 142.

"(b) `Playboy' — August 1959, page 88—October 1959, page 112.

"(c) `Esquire' — July 1959, page 115.

A copy of the disparaging advertisement which has appeared in the above defendants' magazines is attached hereto, made part hereof and marked Exhibit `A'.

"10. The aforesaid disparaging statements and advertising appeared in the same issues of defendants' publications as plaintiff's advertisements, sometimes on the same page with plaintiff's advertisement. A copy of plaintiff's advertisement is attached hereto, made part hereof and marked Exhibit `B'."

For present purposes, I must assume the truth of plaintiff's allegation that Exhibit "A" annexed to the complaint is a copy of the disparaging advertisement which appeared in all the designated issues of defendants' magazines. In these circumstances, it would be folly to demand of plaintiff a separate statement of each claim against each defendant based on the same Leslie advertisement. Similarly, assuming the truth of plaintiff's allegation that it placed the same advertisement of its own product in all the designated issues of defendants' magazines, plaintiff will not be put to the useless labor of repeating the same fact seven times, once for each claim against each defendant. Plaintiff's allegation that in some cases the respective advertisements of the two parties were printed on the same page will be treated as surplusage since the cases are unspecified. Thus the first ground urged for dismissal of the amended complaint must be rejected.

Defendants also seek dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it does not state claims on which relief can be granted. On oral argument of the motions, defendants Esquire, Inc. and H. M. H. Publishing Co., Inc. presented to the court the issues of their magazines which contained the allegedly disparaging advertisements. No objection was made to admission of these matters outside of the pleading. Hence under Rule 12(b), F.R. Civ.P., I shall treat these two defendants' motions as ones for summary judgments and shall dispose of them as provided in Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P. The motion to dismiss of defendant Ziff-Davis Publishing Co. is made on the face of the complaint and will be discussed last. No answers to the complaint have been interposed and no affidavits were submitted on any of the motions to dismiss.

In actions like the present which are based on multi-state publication of language alleged to be injurious and false, the choice-of-law problem assumes obvious importance. I must of course follow New York conflict of laws doctrine in choosing the appropriate law or laws to be applied in this action. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477; Mattox v. News Syndicate Co., 2 Cir., 176 F.2d 897, 12 A.L.R.2d 988, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 858, 70 S.Ct. 100, 94 L.Ed. 525. There are, however, no decisions in point in the state courts of New York. Hence I must vicariously create law for the New York courts. One...