Peto v. Madison Square Garden Corp.
| Citation | 384 F.2d 682 |
| Decision Date | 27 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 69,Docket 31106.,69 |
| Parties | Leonard A. PETO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MADISON SQUARE GARDEN CORP., James D. Norris, Ringland F. Kilpatrick, Jr., Executor of the Estate of John Reed Kilpatrick, Edward S. Irish, Arthur M. Wirtz and Walter Annenberg, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
Leonard A. Peto, pro se.
Roy L. Reardon, New York City (John C. Diller, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, Emil N. Levin, Abraham L. Bienstock, and Sidney O. Friedman, New York City, on the brief), for appellees.
Before HAYS, ANDERSON and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.
This is an action under the Sherman and Clayton Acts, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., for treble damages. In the district court defendants were granted summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff's claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm.
Peto instituted this action in March 1958 alleging that defendants have established a monopoly in the professional hockey industry and that they conspired to prevent plaintiff from constructing and operating a hockey arena which would have competed with defendants' enterprises. Section 4B of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15b, bars actions not commenced within four years after the cause of action accrued. A "right of action for a civil conspiracy under the antitrust laws accrues from the commission of the last overt act causing injury or damage." Garelick v. Goerlich's, Inc., 323 F.2d 854, 855 (6th Cir. 1963). In the material submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment plaintiff failed to establish that there was any triable issue as to the occurrence within four years of the time the action was commenced of any overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.
Plaintiff resorts to the provisions of Section 5(b) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(b), in an effort to bring himself within the statutory period of limitation. Under Section 5(b) the statute of limitations is tolled for a private action which is "based in whole or in part on any matter complained of" in a proceeding brought by the United States. Plaintiff cites United States v. International Boxing Club of N. Y. Inc., 150 F.Supp. 397 (S.D.N.Y.1957), aff'd, 358 U.S. 242, 79 S.Ct. 245, 3 L.Ed.2d 270 (1959), as having the effect of tolling the statute applicable to his claim. But the government's suit must bear "a real relation to the private plaintiff's claim for relief." Leh...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Philadelphia World Hockey Club, Inc. v. Philadelphia Hockey Club, Inc., Civ. A. No. 72-1661
...cert. denied, 385 U.S. 846, 87 S.Ct. 72, 17 L.Ed.2d 76 (1966). For an earlier case pertaining to hockey, see Peto v. Madison Square Garden Corp., 384 F.2d 682 (S.D.N.Y.1958); in Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258, 92 S.Ct. 2099, 32 L.Ed.2d 728, the majority said: "Other professional sports operati......
-
Morton's Market v. Gustafson's Dairy
...between their bid-rigging activities and their price-fixing activities. Neither case is helpful. In Peto v. Madison Square Garden Corp., 384 F.2d 682, 683 (2d Cir.1967), a conspiracy to monopolize boxing was not related to a conspiracy to monopolize hockey, especially since the "only simila......
-
Guilani v. Bak (In re Bak)
...in the Second Circuit. DeLuca v. Atlantic Refining Co., 176 F.2d 421, 424 (2d Cir. 1949)(L. Hand, J.); Peto v. Madison Square Garden Co., 384 F.2d 682, 683 (2d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 989, 88 S. Ct. 1185 (1968)." BellSouth Telcoms. v. W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., 918 F. Supp. 533, 535......
-
Saunders v. National Basketball Association
...3 Cir., 1967, 377 F.2d 766, aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 392 U.S. 481, 88 S.Ct. 2224, 20 L.Ed. 2d 1231 (1968); Peto v. Madison Square Garden Corp., 2 Cir., 1967, 384 F.2d 682, cert. den. 390 U.S. 989, 88 S.Ct. 1185, 19 L.Ed.2d 1293; Sherman v. Goerlich's, Inc., E.D.Mich., 1963, 238 F.Supp.......
-
Antitrust and Sports
...basketball); Deesen v. Prof’l Golfers’ Ass’n, 358 F.2d 165, 171-72 (9th Cir. 1966) (same as to golf); Peto v. Madison Square Garden Corp., 384 F.2d 682, 683 (2d Cir. 1967) (same as to hockey). 26 Piazza v. MLB, 831 F. Supp. 420, 436 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (holding antitrust applicable to decision ......
-
Table of Cases
...680 (1978), 350 Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co. v. Checkers, Inc., 754 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1985), 351 Peto v. Madison Square Garden Corp., 384 F.2d 682 (2d Cir. 1967), 266 Petrochem Insulation, Inc. v. N. Cal. & N. Nev. Pipe Trades Council, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4564 (N.D. Cal. 1992), 199 Petr......