TOC, INC. v. United Artists Theatre Circuit
Decision Date | 07 February 1986 |
Docket Number | No. C-85-7356 SC.,C-85-7356 SC. |
Citation | 631 F. Supp. 832 |
Parties | T.O.C., INC., and To-Can Cinemas, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED ARTISTS THEATRE CIRCUIT, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Barry D. Parkinson, Petaluma, Cal., for plaintiffs.
Khouri & Crew, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants.
Plaintiff filed this action on August 26, 1985, in Sonoma County Superior Court seeking compensatory and punitive damages for unfair competition. Plaintiffs claim that defendants' methods of distributing and exhibiting motion pictures amount to an unreasonable restraint upon trade. On October 2, 1985, defendant United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. ("United Artists"), removed this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The matter is presently before the court on plaintiffs' motion to remand, and defendants United Artists, MGM/UA Entertainment Company, Orion Pictures Distribution, Paramount Pictures Corporation, and 20th Century Fox Film Corporation's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs move, first, to remand this action to state court on grounds that "the Complaint at hand is clearly ... based upon California law and not upon Federal law." Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Remand, p. 2. Briefly, plaintiffs argue that their claims for unfair competition are properly pleaded under the California Cartwright Act, Cal.Bus. and Prof.Code § 16700 et seq. Upon review of the record, however, the court agrees with defendants that "plaintiffs' pleading impermissibly side-steps the Sherman Antitrust Act," and should thus be construed as stating a federal cause of action. Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion to Remand, p. 2.
In re Wiring Device, 498 F.Supp. at 82.
Defendants in this case are unquestionably involved in interstate commerce. See United States v. Capitol Service, Inc., 568 F.Supp. 134 (E.D.Wisc.1983). Moreover, defendant motion picture distributors license pictures for distribution in a "fairly similar" manner in "all fifty states," while defendant United Artists rents films "across the country using the same methods challenged by plaintiffs." Defendants' Memorandum, p. 4. For "corporations such as defendants that do business nationwide, it is important to enforce to the extent possible uniform antitrust regulations." Buchanan, 571 F.Supp. at 872; see also, In re Wiring Device, 498 F.Supp. at 82. Because "differing state antitrust decisions if applied to the enterprises would likely compel defendants ... to comply with the laws of the strictest state," then, the court finds that plaintiffs must properly bring this action under federal antitrust laws. Parte...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
King Provision Corp. v. Burger King Corp., 90-310-Civ-J-14.
...antitrust claim, South Carolina had displaced state law from the field. 6 The defendant also cites to T.O.C., Inc. v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, 631 F.Supp. 832 (N.D. Cal.1986). However, this case was recently disapproved of by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Redwood Theatres, In......
-
Redwood Theatres, Inc. v. Festival Enterprises, Inc.
...the district court denied Redwood's subsequent motion to remand, citing as authority its prior decision in TOC, Inc. v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, 631 F.Supp. 832 (N.D.Cal.1986). Redwood argues in this interlocutory appeal that the district court improperly invoked the "artful pleading......
-
Mechanical Rubber & Supply v. American Saw & Mfg.
...does not reach interstate commerce of any kind. (Citation omitted). Id. at 82 (emphasis added); see also, T.O.C. v. United Artists Theater Circuit, 631 F.Supp. 832, 834 (N.D.Cal.1986). Count I of the Amended Complaint alleges that American Saw is a manufacturer of industrial saw blades with......