Universal Amusements Co. v. Gen. Cinema Corp.
Decision Date | 22 November 1985 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. H-78-192. |
Parties | UNIVERSAL AMUSEMENTS CO., INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL CINEMA CORP. OF TEXAS, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Marion S. Rosen, Marion S. Rosen & Assoc., Ben H. Schleider and Paul S. Francis, Schleider & Francis, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs.
Rufus Wallingford, Fulbright & Jaworski, Houston, Tex., for exhibitor defendants.
Ralph S. Carrigan and J. Michael Baldwin, Baker & Botts, Houston, Tex., for distributor defendants.
Stephen D. Susman and Terrell W. Oxford, Susman, Godfrey & McGowan, Houston, Tex., A. Vernon Carnahan, Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, New York City, and Paul E. Stallings, Vinson & Elkins, Houston, Tex., for all other defendants.
The Plaintiffs1 owned and operated the Champions Village Cinema, located northwest of downtown Houston at 6550 FM 1960 W., from its opening in September 1973 until its sale to American Multi-Cinema in April 1980. During that same time period each exhibitor defendant2 owned theaters in the Houston area which, like Champions, catered to the general public. The distributor defendants3 meanwhile distributed the bulk of the films these theaters played.
The distributor defendants licensed their high quality first-run films to Houston exhibitors primarily through a process of competitive negotiations and bids.4 They accordingly informed Champions that to continually get such first-run films, Champions would have to bid against the other exhibitors in the Houston Exchange. Champions, however, generally refused to so bid — contending that it did not compete with the Houston exhibitors and thus, like the outlying Sugarland and Baytown theaters, should be allowed to negotiate first-run films independent of the Houston exhibitors' bids. Since the distributor defendants refused to treat Champions as such an outlying theater, Champions settled for playing less profitable near-run and sub-run films.
Plaintiffs claimed that the distributor defendants' requiring Champions to bid in the Houston Exchange stemmed from a conspiracy or series of conspiracies amongst various exhibitors and distributors. As distilled and focused at trial by Plaintiffs' damage/causation expert,5 Plaintiffs claimed that the conspiracy's including Champions in the Houston Exchange in turn subjected Champions to the following anticompetitive practices: (1) the other exhibitors' depriving Champions of licenses by successfully allocating films amongst themselves (the split); (2) General Cinema's inducing the distributors to deny Champions a license on films awarded the Greenspoint Theatre (the clearances); (3) the distributors' limiting the number of film prints available to exhibitors in the Houston Exchange (the print limits); and (4) the distributors and exhibitors constantly abusing the hybrid bid/negotiation process for awarding film licenses (the licensing abuse). Invoking various antitrust theories such as boycott and monopolization, Plaintiffs concluded that the defendants' conduct violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
Citing pendant state law grounds, Plaintiffs alternatively claimed that the defendants tortiously interfered with valuable business or contractual relationships existing between Plaintiffs and others.
Finally, Plaintiffs alleged that they incurred damages of approximately $1.5 million from the defendants' illegal conduct.
The trial of this case before a jury began on 4 September 1985. Plaintiffs rested on October 2, and the defendants moved for a directed verdict pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a). After studying the filed briefs and hearing the parties' oral arguments, this Court on October 3 granted a directed verdict in favor of each defendant. This Memorandum Opinion explains that decision.
Boeing v. Shipman established the standard for assessing directed verdict motions in this Circuit:
On motions for directed verdict ... the Court should consider all of the evidence — not just that evidence which supports the non-mover's case — but in the light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable to the party opposed to the motion. If the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the Court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict, granting of the motions is proper. On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence opposed to the motions, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motions should be denied, and the case submitted to the jury. A mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient to present a question for the jury. The motions for directed verdict ... should not be decided by which side has the better of the case, nor should they be granted only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support a jury verdict. There must be a conflict in substantial evidence to create a jury question. However, it is the function of the jury as the traditional finder of the facts, and not the Court, to weigh conflicting evidence and inferences, and determine the credibility of witnesses.
Boeing v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374-75 (5th Cir.1969) (en banc); accord e.g. J.T. Gibbons Inc. v. Crawford Fitting, 704 F.2d 787, 790-91 (5th Cir.1983) ( ); Shumate & Co. v. National Assn. of Securities Dealers, 509 F.2d 147, 153 (5th Cir.) cert. denied 423 U.S. 868, 96 S.Ct. 131, 46 L.Ed.2d 97 (1975).
With that standard in mind, this Court explains its disposal of Plaintiffs' antitrust and tortious interference claims.
To prevail on any of their antitrust claims, Plaintiffs had to establish a relevant product and geographic market. E.g., Hornsby Oil v. Champion Spark Plugs, 714 F.2d 1384, 1390-94 & n. 8 (5th Cir.1983) ( );6 Domed Stadium Hotel v. Holiday Inns, 732 F.2d 480, 487, 490 (5th Cir. 1984) ( ).7 The same basic principles, moreover, govern a relevant market's definition under Sections 1 and 2. Hornsby Oil, 714 F.2d at 1393 n. 9.
This case's relevant product market consisted of high quality first-run films. See e.g., Transcript of 29 August 1985 pre-trial conference, page 33, lines 3-5; page 38, lines 1-3.
As for the geographic aspect, Plaintiffs had confined their complaint to the film distribution market — i.e., the licensing of films from distributors to exhibitors. Id. at page 37, lines 20-24. The relevant geographic market therefore encompassed the geographic area in which the distributors effectively competed for licensees of their high quality first-run films. E.g., Hornsby Oil, 714 F.2d at 1393; see also Tampa Electric v. Nashville Coal, 365 U.S. 320, 330-33, 81 S.Ct. 623, 629-31, 5 L.Ed.2d 580 (1961).
Plaintiffs bore the burden of producing competent economic evidence for the jury to assess the scope of that geographic market. See e.g. U.S. v. Connecticut National Bank, 418 U.S. 656, 669-70, 94 S.Ct. 2788, 2796-97, 41 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1974) ( ); Joseph Ciccone & Sons v. Eastern Industries, 559 F.Supp. 671, 674-77 (E.D.Pa.1983) (same). Although they produced some sparse evidence as to Champions' competition in the exhibition market for theater patrons, Plaintiffs produced no competent economic evidence concerning the geographic scope of the distributors' competition in the distribution market for film licensees. Thus despite Plaintiffs' frequent allusions to the "Houston market", the jury had no substantial evidence upon which to determine the relevant geographic market in this case. That failure in Plaintiffs' proof alone warranted a directed verdict on the antitrust claims.
Even if Plaintiffs had adduced sufficient evidence of a relevant geographic market, their § 2 claims could not survive a directed verdict motion.
E.g., U.S. v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-71, 86 S.Ct. 1698, 1704, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966); accord Domed Stadium, 732 F.2d at 480. "Monopoly power", moreover, is the power to control prices or exclude competition. E.g., U.S. v. E.I. duPont de Nemours, 351 U.S. 377, 391, 76 S.Ct. 994, 1005, 100 L.Ed. 1264 (1956); Domed Stadium, 732 F.2d at 487.
Yet Plaintiffs failed to substantiate that any defendant possessed monopoly power in any geographic market. The record similarly lacked substantial evidence as to the willful acquisition or maintenance of any monopoly power. Those failures mandated directing the verdict on Plaintiffs' § 2 claim concerning monopolization of the distribution market.10
E.g., Domed Stadium, 732 F.2d at 490; Aviation...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Redwood Theatres, Inc. v. Festival Enterprises, Inc.
...by circumstantial evidence. In some cases, a summary judgment or directed verdict has been affirmed. (Universal Amusements Co. v. Gen. Cinema Corp. (S.D.Tex.1985) 635 F.Supp. 1505; Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Moyer 1981-1 Trade Cases p 63,878; Lamb's Patio Theatre v. Universal Fil......
-
Federico v. Charterers Mut. Assur. Ass'n Ltd.
... ... See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d ... ...
-
In re Tableware Antitrust Litigation
..."boycott" is "the equivalent of yelling `fire' in the halls of traditional antitrust jurisprudence." Universal Amusements Co. v. General Cinema Corp., 635 F.Supp. 1505, 1523 (S.D.Tex.1985). The application of the per se rule to group boycotts developed from a series of cases in which the Su......
-
MINPECO, SA v. Hunt
...attributable to lawful competition from those attributable to the unlawful scheme. Finally, in Universal Amusements Co. v. General Cinema Corp., 635 F.Supp. 1505, 1526 (S.D.Tex. 1985), looking to MCI, the court granted the defendants' motion for a directed verdict because the damage model r......
-
Restraints of Trade
...(5th Cir. 1988); Moore v. Boating Indus. Ass’ns, 819 F.2d 693, 700 (7th Cir. 1987); Universal Amusements Co. v. General Cinema Corp., 635 F. Supp. 1505, 1523 (S.D. Tex. 1985); Livezey v. American Contract Bridge League, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16058, at *29-31 (E.D. Pa. 1985), aff’d mem., 800......
-
Table of Cases
...Co. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc. 702 F. Supp. 2d 465 (M.D. Pa. 2010), 839, 1010–1011 Universal Amusements Co. v. General Cinema Corp., 635 F. Supp. 1505 (S.D. Tex. 1985), 119 Universal Analytics, Inc. v. MacNeal-Schwendler Corp., 914 F.2d 1256 (9th Cir. 1990), 338 Universal Avionics Sys. Corp. v......