Pape Television Co. v. ASSOCIATED ARTISTS PRO. CORP., 18054.
| Decision Date | 26 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 18054.,18054. |
| Citation | 277 F.2d 750 |
| Parties | PAPE TELEVISION COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. ASSOCIATED ARTISTS PRODUCTION CORPORATION and A.A.P., Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Willis C. Darby, Jr., Vincent F. Kilborn, Mobile, Ala., for appellant.
C. A. L. Johnstone, Jr., Mobile, Ala., McCorvey, Turner, Johnstone, Adams & May, Mobile, Ala., of counsel, for appellees.
Before HUTCHESON, TUTTLE and JONES, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from the dismissal of Appellant's treble damage anti-trust and restraint of trade suit based on Appellee's practice of licensing its film by tying together several "packages" of film. Appellees seek to support the judgment of the trial court on the ground that the complaint failed to allege facts on which relief could be granted, and also on the ground that venue was improperly laid in the Southern District of Alabama and that the service of process on them was void.
Turning first to the venue and service issue, we conclude that in accordance with well established principles as enunciated by this court in Green v. United States Chewing Gum Manufacturing Company, 5 Cir., 224 F.2d 369, the activities of Appellees in personally soliciting the business of Appellant in Alabama, resulting in the making of an offer, followed by the drawing up and signing by Appellant in Alabama of a contract for the licensing at a fee of some $32,000 payable over thirty-five months of several hundred films to be shown over many weeks were sufficient "contacts of the corporation with the state of forum * * *, in the context of our federal system * * * to require the corporation to defend the particular suit which is brought there * * *", International Shoe Company v. State of Washington Office of Unemployment Compensation and Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 317, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95, even though under earlier concepts these corporations would not have been suable in ordinary litigation in the State of Alabama. Touching on the venue provisions of the anti-trust statute, 15 U.S.C.A. § 22, the Supreme Court said in Eastman Kodak Company v. Southern Photo Materials Company, 273 U.S. 359, 373, 47 S.Ct. 400, 403, 71 L. Ed. 684 "And we think it clear that, as applied to suits against corporations, for injuries sustained by violations of the Anti-Trust Act, its necessary effect was to enlarge the local jurisdiction of the district courts so as to establish the venue of such a suit not only, as theretofore, in a district in which the corporation resides or is `found', but also in any district in which it `transacts business' — although neither residing nor `found' therein".
We conclude therefore that the trial court correctly over-ruled the motions to quash service and dismiss on the ground of improper venue.
We next deal with the sufficiency of the complaint to allege facts on which relief could be granted.
Appellant pitched its case on the following allegations, considerably shortened and paraphrased: that defendants had obtained copyrights to a large number (202) of Pop Eye cartoon films and a large number (337) of less desirable Warner films and a substantial number of other less desirable films for television showing; that they have offered to and did enter into a contract with Appellant to license the showing of the 202 Pop Eye films only on condition that Appellant would also take and pay for the 337 Warner films and the rest of the block or package of less desirable films; that Appellant neither wanted nor needed the Warner or other films but was compelled to buy and pay for them in order to get the film it did want; that this course of action by defendants damaged Appellant by requiring it to buy and pay for film it did not want and by denying it the opportunity to bargain for the film it desired without the tie-in of the other film; and that such action amounted to a restraint of trade and commerce. These allegations, they say, adequately stated a cause of action. We agree that this is so.
Appellant relies heavily on the landmark case, United States v. Paramount Pictures, 334 U.S. 131, 68...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hitt v. Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.
...v. U. S. Steel Corp., 129 F.Supp. 425, 427 (E.D.Pa.1955) as quoted in Green, supra at 374. See also Pape Television Co. v. Associated Artists Production Corp., 277 F.2d 750 (5th Cir. 1960); Brandt v. Renfield Importers, Ltd., 278 F.2d 904 (8th Cir. 13 The risk of loss was on Marubeni-Americ......
-
In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig.
...the plaintiff, and agreed to license films to the plaintiff for $32,000, payable over 35 months. Pape Television Co. v. Associated Artists Prod. Corp. , 277 F.2d 750, 751–52 (5th Cir. 1960).As an initial matter, the court concludes that the Moving Defendants' "percentage of revenue" approac......
-
Lippa & Co. v. LENOX INCORPORATED
...sales figures of the same order of magnitude to be substantial when coupled with other factors. See Pape Television Co. v. Associated Artists Prod. Corp., 277 F.2d 750 (5th Cir. 1960); Green v. U. S. Chewing Gum Mfg. Co., 224 F.2d 369 (5th Cir. 1955); School Dist. of Philadelphia v. Harper ......
-
Hartley & Parker, Inc. v. Florida Beverage Corporation
...U.S.C.A. § 22.2 Green v. United States Chewing Gum Mfg. Co., 5 Cir., 1955, 224 F.2d 369; see also Pape Television Co. v. Associated Artists Production Corporation, 5 Cir., 1960, 277 F.2d 750; Brandt v. Renfield Importers, Ltd., 8 Cir., 1960, 278 F.2d 904. We conclude that the district court......