UNITED STATES DENT. INST. v. American Ass'n of Orth.
Decision Date | 06 June 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 74 C 2924.,74 C 2924. |
Citation | 396 F. Supp. 565 |
Parties | UNITED STATES DENTAL INSTITUTE et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ORTHODONTISTS et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Lee A. Freeman, Freeman, Freeman & Salzman, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
Thomas L. Croft, Peter W. Herzog, Jr., and John R. McFarland, Coburn, Croft, Shepherd & Herzog, St. Louis, Mo., John Edward Burke, Ross, Hardies, O'Keefe, Babcock & Parsons, Chicago, Ill., for Am. Assoc. of Orthodontists and certain individual defendants.
Owen Rall, Peter M. Sfikas, Russell M. Pelton, Jr. and Michael P. Tone, Peterson, Ross, Rall, Barber & Seidel, Chicago, Ill., for Am. Dental Assn. and certain individual defendants.
Raymond R. Cusack, Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, Ill., for Antonio J. Venezia.
The United States Dental Institute ("USDI"), a private, for-profit, post-secondary educational institution, and ten individual general practitioner dentists have filed this antitrust action against two professional organizations, the American Association of Orthodontists ("AAO") and the American Dental Association ("ADA"), and twenty-five individual defendants, twenty-three of whom are officials of those organizations.1 In this three-count complaint, plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief and treble damages. Count I is a claim by USDI brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2. USDI alleges that it seeks to teach orthodontic skills and techniques to general practitioner dentists by means of monthly three-day seminars over a five-year period. In this manner, these dentists would be able to expand their general practice within the limits of their license to practice dentistry, without interrupting their careers to return to school for two years of specialty training. Such training would further qualify them as orthodontists. USDI does not claim to be in a position to certify its students as qualified orthodontists; it claims to serve only as an educational facility teaching specialty techniques to practicing dentists. The basis of the claim in Count I is that defendants "engaged in a combination, conspiracy and continuing course of conduct designed to unreasonably restrain and destroy USDI" for the purpose of restricting the number of individuals able to practice orthodontia and thus protect the monopolistic position of certified orthodontists. Among the acts charged against defendants in Count I are: (1) actions to prevent USDI from receiving approval from the State of Illinois to operate as a private post-secondary educational facility, and once such approval had been granted, defendants acted to have it revoked by the Illinois Superintendent of Public Instruction; (2) approval of "Guidelines for Continuing Dental Education" which eliminated USDI from the list of defendant-approved educational programs; (3) refusal to publish listings of USDI courses or USDI advertisements for qualified faculty members in defendant-controlled journals; and (4) approval of an advisory opinion declaring it to be "unethical" for a dentist to participate as a teacher in a non-defendant-approved educational program.
Count II is a pendent state claim charging defendants with libel of USDI allegedly resulting from the publication of certain letters and articles.
Count III is a claim by the ten individual general practitioner dentist plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and their purported class, who have been unable to receive training in orthodontia, who must refer their patients to recognized specialists in orthodontia, and who consequently have been unable to improve their earnings through expanded services for their patients.
Defendants have filed a plethora of motions in this case. There were a series of motions to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Alternatively, defendants moved to strike portions of the complaint. I will now turn to a consideration of each of these motions.
Nine individual defendants, who were officers and officials of AAO, have moved to dismiss the complaint as to them on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2).2 By way of personal affidavit, each of these defendants states that he is not an inhabitant of Illinois, was "found" in this lawsuit (i. e., served with summons) outside of Illinois, and therefore is not properly subject to this court's jurisdiction. In determining the validity of service of process in general, and extra-territorial service of process, in particular, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide:
In Illinois, the long-arm statute, Section 17 of the Illinois Civil Practice Act, Ill. Rev.Stat. ch. 110, § 17, provides, in pertinent part:
Extra-territorial service of process under this statute is proper in treble damage actions under the federal antitrust laws. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago v. General Electric Co., 35 F.R.D. 131 (N.D.Ill. 1964). Before applying this statute in this case, however, in considering defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the person, certain guidelines must be recognized. Such standards were recently set forth by my colleague Judge Will in Tatham-Laird & Kudner, Inc. v. Johnny's American Inn, Inc., 383 F.Supp. 28, 29 (N.D.Ill.1974), where he made an analysis of § 17 as interpreted by the courts:
To this well reasoned statement of law, I would further note only that there is no formula or rule of thumb for determining whether sufficient minimum contacts exist, other than by ascertaining what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the particular situation. Hutter Northern Trust v. Door County Chamber of Commerce, 403 F.2d 481, 484 (7th Cir. 1968).
In applying these standards to the instant case, this court must closely examine both the allegations of the complaint relevant to these defendants and the facts stated in each defendant's affidavit. The complaint charges that these individual defendants furthered the conspiracy to illegally restrain the commerce of plaintiffs by: (1) adopting the "Guidelines for Continuing Dental Education" which allegedly sought to eliminate USDI as a source of continuing education in orthodontia; and (2) allegedly acting to prevent USDI from gaining approval from the State of Illinois to operate as a private post-secondary educational facility in orthodontia and, when such approval was granted, seeking to have the approval revoked.3
In their individual affidavits, defendants Aldrich, Bushey, Sather and West state that they attended a meeting of the AAO Council on Orthodontic Education held in April, 1974, at the O'Hare Inn in Rosemont, Illinois, at which meeting the Council adopted the allegedly restrictive "Guidelines" cited in the complaint. Bushey, Sather and West admit in their affidavits that they were members of the Council which approved the "Guidelines". This was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Athletes Foot of Delaware v. Ralph Libonati Co.
...Commissioners v. Wilshire Oil Co. of Texas, 523 F.2d 125, 129-30 & n.6 (C.A.10, 1975); United States Dental Institute v. American Association of Orthodontists, 396 F.Supp. 565, 573 (N.D.Ill.1975); C. Wright, Law of Federal Courts § 42 (3d ed. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) reads as follows: "A civil a......
-
Health Care Equalization v. Iowa Medical Soc.
...the Clayton Act supplement the general federal venue provisions and does not preempt them. United States Dental Institute v. American Association of Orthodontists, 396 F.Supp. 565, 573 (N.D.Ill.1975). Defendant AMA's assertion that jurisdiction and venue over it is improper under the Iowa l......
-
Oetiker v. Jurid Werke, G.m.b.H.
...(2d Cir. 1959) (dictum); Bertozzi v. King Louie Int'l, Inc., 420 F.Supp. 1166 (D.R.I.1976); United States Dental Inst. v. American Ass'n of Orthodontists, 396 F.Supp. 565, 574-76 (N.D.Ill.1975); Sohns v. Dahl, 392 F.Supp. 1208, 1218 (W.D.Va.1975); Oxford First Corp. v. PNC Liquidating Corp.......
-
Great Western United Corp. v. Kidwell
...Ghazoul v. International Management Services, Inc., 398 F.Supp. 307, 314-15 (S.D.N.Y.1975); U. S. Dental Inst. v. American Ass'n of Orthodontists, 396 F.Supp. 565, 574 (N.D.Ill.1975); Redmond v. Atlantic Coast Football League, 359 F.Supp. 666, 669-70 (S.D.Ind.1973); Fox-Keller, Inc. v. Toyo......
-
A Rule for All Reasons: the Professional Services Exemption to Liability Under Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act
...v. Am. Inst. of Architects, 474 F. Supp. 628 (D.D.C. 1979) (architects); United States Dental Inst. v. Am. Ass'n of Orthodontists, 396 F. Supp. 565 (N. D. Ill. 1975) (dentists); Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986) (dentists); California Dental Ass'n v. F......
-
Standard Setting by Governmental or Quasi-Governmental Bodies
...of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Adver., Inc., 499 U.S. 365, 380 (1991). See also United States Dental Inst. v. Am. Ass’n of Orthodontists, 396 F. Supp. 565, 582-83 (N.D. Ill. 1975) (allowing plaintiffs to introduce evidence that the real intent of association was not to invoke processes of the ......
-
Table Of Cases
...United States Dental Inst. v. Am. Ass’n of Orthodontists, 396 F. Supp. 565 (N.D. Ill. 1975)...................................................155 United States v. Airline Tariff Publ’g Co., 836 F. Supp. 9 (D.D.C. 1993) ..............................................................................