Southland Reship, Inc. v. Flegel, 75-3770

Decision Date02 July 1976
Docket NumberNo. 75-3770,75-3770
Parties1976-2 Trade Cases 61,001 SOUTHLAND RESHIP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. Leslie FLEGEL, Individually and d/b/a Periodical Sales of America, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Charles H. Kirbo, Lanny B. Bridgers, John Izard, Atlanta, Ga., Bob Burleson, Temple, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

Alan E. Popkin, St. Louis, Mo., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before TUTTLE, AINSWORTH and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

TUTTLE, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal by Southland Reship, Inc. from the denial on the merits by the district court of a permanent injunction sought by Southland both on Sherman Act and on Georgia state law claims. Southland also appeals from the district court's consolidation, pursuant to Rule 65(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of its motions for a preliminary and permanent injunction, arguing that it was thereby deprived of its right to a jury trial on liability.

Southland Reship, Inc. is a company that provides distribution and associated services of books, magazines, periodicals and newspapers to retailers. A Texas corporation organized in 1974, Southland purchased the Rome, Georgia Reship Division of another reshipper, Mid-Continent News Co., a subsidiary of ARA Services, Inc., on Sept. 27, 1974. This transaction resulted from an FTC consent decree involving ARA and Mid-Continent and requiring Mid-Continent to divest itself of the Rome Division. Until the entry of Periodical Sales of America into the market, the company owning the Rome Division (first Mid-Continent and then Southland) was the only wholesale distributor for rural retailers in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, North and South Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee. Thus, they had a virtual eight-state monopoly. Periodical Sales of America was organized in January and February of 1975, as a reshipper in the Southeast by S. Leslie Flegel. Flegel and several other corporations which he controls and which are involved in reshipping are among the appellees; only one of these corporations, Periodical Shippers of America, Inc., a Missouri corporation organized in December 1974, operates in the Southeast. The district court found that the relationship between Periodical Shippers and Periodical Sales was unclear from the record.

Another appellee, Don Hart, was manager of Reship at Mid-Continent at the time of the purchase by Southland and was personally responsible for preparing the Mid-Continent contracts, accounts receivable, and other records that were turned over to Southland. Furthermore, in the course of his employment he had committed to memory the financial details, including employees' salaries, relating to the Rome Division. In the Fall of 1974, Flegel and Hart, who were acquaintances, had discussed Hart's possible employment by Flegel in one of his reship operations. On January 15, 1975, subsequent to suffering a heart attack, Hart was relieved as manager of Reship at Mid-Continent; he immediately phone Flegel to discuss employment. Flegel and Hart met in St. Louis, Mo., toward the end of January; they agreed that Hart would come to work for Flegel, and they discussed other employees of both Southland and Mid-Continent whom they thought might be interested in employment by Flegel. Although they contemplated forming a new corporation, they did not in fact do so; they simply conducted business in the Rome Division area under the name of Periodical Sales of America.

In setting up Periodical Sales, Flegel and Hart planned a meeting in St. Louis to be attended by Mid-Continent and Southland supervisors and routemen. This meeting was originally scheduled for Feb. 7-8, 1975; since both Mid-Continent and Southland scheduled employees' meetings for Feb. 7, the meeting was moved up and commenced on Feb. 5. None of appellant's employees was under contract, and when appellant heard of the St. Louis meeting it announced that any routeman attending would be fired. One routeman, James Brock, did attend. Upon deciding to accept employment with Flegel and Hart, he gave notice to Southland.

At least two of appellant's officers were aware of the meeting and of the fact that two of their supervisors, George Neal and Ron Garrison, had been invited. They did not object to their attending but instead asked them to report back to Southland on the content of the meeting. Both Neal and Garrison went to the meeting and both resigned from Southland and accepted employment with Periodical Sales. Within a week, however, appellant had an opportunity to rehire Neal and Garrison; it declined to do so because of their "questionable loyalty." The district court found that Neal and Garrison knew the Southland customer list by heart.

Both Garrison and Neal testified that they were told to hire routemen in order to fulfill their responsibilities as supervisors for Periodical Sales, but that they were not told to offer employment to appellant's routemen. Both did, however, solicit each routeman who had been working under them for appellant. Six routemen in all were approached subsequent to the meeting. (This excludes Brock, who was told of the meeting by Neal and who attended and decided to leave appellant's employ while in St. Louis.) Of these six, three left Southland and went with Periodical Sales (Johnston, Blackwell, and Myers); of these three, one, Blackwell, had been with Southland only one week.

Additionally, one other routeman, James Cheaves, had terminated his employment with appellant due to his general dissatisfaction in mid-January, prior to the creation of Periodical Sales. Cheaves' brother-in-law was employed by Flegel and through him Cheaves sought and obtained a position with Flegel. Thus, a total of two supervisors and five routemen left Southland and commenced work for Periodical Sales. Three of Southland's other routemen were solicited by Periodical Sales but remained with Southland. Only the Southland supervisor in Mississippi, Sam Celino, and the routeman who worked for him, were not solicited. (It appears from Celino's deposition that more than one routeman may have worked under him, but since this is not clear we will assume there was only one since this is the position taken by appellant and most favorable to it.) Sam Celino was a recently-hired employee.

The testimony showed that George Neal had contacted Don Hart, prior to Hart's beginning negotiations with Flegel, about the possibility of a job with ARA. Ronnie Garrison testified that at the time he was told of the St. Louis meeting he was planning to seek other employment, but had not gotten around to it. Don Hart testified that at the time of his heart attack he had been approached by many of the employees who had formerly worked for him when Mid-Continent owned the Rome Division, and that several had expressed discontent with Southland. The largest single cause of employee dissatisfaction seemed to be salary cuts and decreased benefits put into effect by Southland.

The employees who left Southland and accepted employment with Periodical Sales gave notice between Feb. 6 and 9, and began work for Periodical Sales on Feb. 10. Southland countered this move by importing routemen and supervisors from other areas of their operation, and by hiring new routemen. Routemen can be trained in a very short time, apparently not longer than two weeks, and Southland had in the past trained routemen in as little as one week. Additionally, Southland had purchased Mid-Continent's contracts with the dealers, and they provided as follows:

"A written notice allowing ten days on magazines and 30 days on newspapers shall be given your office by me of cancellation of all or any part of this order before same shall be binding on you."

Thus, Southland had some time in which to reach its dealers and attempt to retain them as customers before their accounts could be terminated. It is clear, however, that the routeman is a reshipper's major contact with the dealer, and thus the relationship between the routeman and the dealer is extremely valuable to the company. This effect was somewhat diminished as far as the Southland routemen were concerned since they did not deliver and arrange the product for the dealer; rather, the periodicals were mailed. Periodical Sales offered the dealers truck delivery service and better rates; both of these factors apparently affected those dealers who switched to Periodical Sales, in addition to their friendship with the routeman. Since encountering competition by Periodical Sales, Southland has instituted truck deliveries and admittedly otherwise improved its services. Additionally, Southland met Periodical Sales Price competition in many, but not all, cases.

The district court made extensive findings of fact. Among them were the following:

39. The critical reason for the switch of employment by plaintiff's supervisors and routemen to defendant, Periodical Sales of America, was their discontent with their remuneration, which was less than they had anticipated.

40. The only Southland customers to testify . . . testified that no defendants seriously disparaged plaintiff or urged misuse or harm of plaintiff's property or gave any directions detrimental to plaintiff or gave any false or untrue statements about plaintiff.

41. The actual effect of defendants' operations has been pro-competitive. Prices to retailers have been reduced; service admittedly has improved, although plaintiff denies that the improvement in its own service was due to the defendants' competition. While defendants clearly have taken some of plaintiff's customers, there is no evidence that the overall business of both companies is not equally as large as if not larger than, the prior business of plaintiff alone. (Emphasis added.)

In arguing its claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, appellant Southland relies...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • White v. McGinnis
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • May 16, 1990
    ...Model King Air, 777 F.2d 947, 950-51 (4th Cir.1985); Allen v. Barnes Hosp., 721 F.2d 643, 644 (8th Cir.1983); Southland Reship, Inc. v. Flegel, 534 F.2d 639, 643-45 (5th Cir.1976); Wool v. Real Estate Exch., 179 F.2d 62, 63 (D.C.Cir.1949) (per curiam). 7 See generally 9 C. Wright & A. Mille......
  • Lacy v. Cook Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • July 30, 2018
    ...then to try the legal issues before a jury, and then to hold the hearing itself on the permanent injunction." Southland Reship, Inc. v. Flegel , 534 F.2d 639, 644 (5th Cir. 1976).Here, throughout the hearing, the district court sent extremely mixed messages about the nature of the hearing i......
  • Fujiwara v. Clark
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • August 10, 1979
    .... . . to try the legal issues before a jury, and then hold the hearing itself on the permanent injunction. Southland Reship, Inc. v. Flegel, 534 F.2d 639, 644 (5th Cir. 1976), rehearing and rehearing en banc denied, September 17, In the case at bar, plaintiffs admit that they have waived th......
  • Advanced Power Systems v. Hi-Tech Systems, Civ. No. 90-7952.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • August 3, 1992
    ...affecting competition as required by rule-of-reason); Southland Reship, Inc v. Flegel, 401 F.Supp. 339, 346 (N.D.Ga.1975), aff'd, 534 F.2d 639 (5th Cir.1976) (holding that Sauter and related cases can only be applied in a unique situation — "when the result is to eliminate the effective 11 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Should a Trade Secrets Misappropriation Claim Lie in the Procrustean Antitrust Bed?
    • United States
    • Antitrust Bulletin No. 22-1, March 1977
    • March 1, 1977
    ...Id.74 392 F. Supp. 1098 (S.D. Texas 1975).75 Id.at1099.76 Id.at1108 n.16.77 Id.at1108.79 Id.79 401 F. Supp. 339 (N.D. Ga. 1975), afi'd, 534 F. 2d 639 (5th Cir.1976).80 Id. at 341.81 Id.at346.82 5283 [d. at 347.THE ANTITRUST BULLETIN8.Id. The court also accepted pendent jurisdiction over sta......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT