Shelter Realty Corp. v. Allied Maintenance Corp., 76 Civ. 341.
| Decision Date | 29 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76 Civ. 341.,76 Civ. 341. |
| Citation | 442 F. Supp. 1087 |
| Parties | SHELTER REALTY CORPORATION et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALLIED MAINTENANCE CORPORATION et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Pomerantz, Levy, Haudek & Block by Stanley M. Grossman, New York City, for plaintiffs.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City, for National Kinney Corp.; Martin London, John M. Delehanty and David S. Elkind, New York City, of counsel.
Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, New York City, for Prudential Bldg. Maintenance Corp.; Fred A. Freund, John A. Friedman, Mark C. Zauderer and Rena C. Seplowitz, New York City, of counsel.
Law Firm of Malcolm A. Hoffmann, Graubard, Moskovitz, McGoldrick, Dannett & Horowitz, New York City, for Allied Maintenance Corp. and Allied Bldg. and Airport Services, Inc.; Malcolm A. Hoffmann, Robert W. Biggar, Jr., Raymond J. Horowitz, John A. Young and Edward S. Weltman, New York City, of counsel.
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, New York City, for Temco Service Industries, Inc.; Charles G. Moerdler, Lawrence M. Handelsman, Alan Kolod, New York City, of counsel.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, New York City, for Alpine Industries, Inc.; Barry H. Garfinkel, Edward J. Yodowitz, New York City, of counsel.
Spiro, Felstiner, Prager & Treeger, New York City, for Anchor Cleaning Service, Inc.; William W. Prager, New York City, of counsel.
Ash & Miller, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, New York City, for Arcade Cleaning Contractors, Inc.; Ted M. Wolkof, Ira M. Millstein, Richard J. Davis and Robert F. Brodegaard, New York City, of counsel.
S. Edward Orenstein, P. C., New York City, for Coastal Enterprises, Inc.; S. Edward Orenstein, P. C., Allan M. Pollack, P. C., New York City, of counsel.
Martin, Obermaier & Morvillo, New York City, for Eastern Maintenance Service, Inc. and Triangle Maintenance Service, Inc.; Robert G. Morvillo, Thomas Fitzpatrick, New York City, of counsel.
Shea, Gould, Climenko, Kramer & Casey, New York City, for MacClean Service Co., Inc.; Ira Postel, New York City, of counsel.
In a private antitrust suit charging conspiratorial allocation of customers among twelve building maintenance companies, this court determined on June 13, 1977, that the case could proceed as a class action. D.C., 75 F.R.D. 34. By motion dated November 2, 1977, defendants seek a statement under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) that the class-action order "involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation * * *."
Despite the length and extensive scholarship in defendants' papers, this is not a suitable case for burdening the Court of Appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Whether or not district judges will desire it to be so, the determination allowing a class action to proceed involves a particular appraisal of specific facts and is to a measurable extent discretionary. For better or worse, the task has been performed here. The prospect of finding a really "controlling question of law" does not seem strong even if it is not patently illusory. Indeed, the defendants' heavy reliance upon the en banc decision in Windham v. American Brands, Inc., 565 F.2d 59 (4th Cir. 1977), exposes some infirmity in their position; that decision, sustaining a district judge's deni...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Alabama Bank of Montgomery, N. A. v. Martin
..."involves a particular appraisal of specific facts and is to a measurable extent discretionary." Shelter Realty Corp. v. Allied Maintenance Corp., 442 F.Supp. 1087, 1089 (1977). As our system of jurisprudence is largely predicated on the studied discretion of trial judges, we are not at all......
- Shelter Realty Corporation v. Allied Maintenance Corporation, 77-7545
-
Sturm und Drang, 1953-1980.
...at 299. (256.) See In re Memorex Sec. Cases, 61 F.R.D. at 98 (making this point). (257.) Shelter Realty Corp. v. Allied Maint. Corp., 442 F. Supp. 1087, 1089 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). For the same sentiment, registered in a different context but dealing with the same problem, see Neely v. United Sta......
-
Foreign States’ Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Antitrust Cases
...states remain free to use diplomatic channels to lobby the U.S. government 18. Shelter Realty Corp. v. Allied Maintenance Corp., 442 F. Supp. 1087 (S.D.N.Y. 1977).19. NASH, DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE, supra note 16, at 561–62.20. Marian Lloyd Nash, Contemporary Practice of the United ......