William F. Luebke Co. v. Manhardt
| Decision Date | 07 February 1941 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 444. |
| Citation | 37 F. Supp. 13 |
| Parties | WILLIAM F. LUEBKE CO. v. MANHARDT et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
William Doll (of Field & Doll), of Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff.
Ralph J. Drought (of Drought & Drought), of Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant W. H. Pipkorn Co.
Joseph E. Tierney, of Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant Froeming Corporation.
Maurice McCabe and Walter H. Bender, both of Milwaukee, Wis., for other defendants.
This matter is before the court upon a motion by all of the defendants for a more definite statement and a bill of particulars. The complaint herein is based upon Secs. 1 and 7 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq. and 15 note. The sixteen defendants named have been engaged in the building supply business. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was a purchaser of building supplies from manufacturers outside of Wisconsin and was a competitor of the defendants; that said defendants do approximately 90% of the building supply business in Milwaukee County and purchase approximately 60% of their supplies from manufacturers outside of Wisconsin; that in 1936 defendants entered into a combination to suppress competition and develop a monopoly in the purchase and sale of building supplies, by maintaining uniform prices, by interfering with competition in purchasing supplies, and by boycotting manufacturers who sold supplies to the plaintiff; and that by reason of said combination and conspiracy, the plaintiff was forced out of business.
The demand for the bill of particulars is 19 pages in length and is divided into 111 separate inquiries. It is estimated that to set forth as a part of the complaint the answers to all of the inquiries, the present complaint would have to be expanded into a well-upholstered document of at least 75 pages. The plaintiff has endeavored to comply with Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, by setting forth his claim in a short and plain statement.
In actions to recover damages for alleged unlawful conspiracy, owing to the complicated nature of the case and the numerous elements which enter into such conspiracy, the plaintiff should be given liberal latitude in his pleadings. Ware-Kramer Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., C.C., 178 F. 117; Louisiana Farmers' Protective Union, Inc., et al. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. of America, D.C., 31 F.Supp. 483, 492. It is inherent in this kind of action that all of the details and specific facts relied upon cannot properly be set forth as a part of the pleadings. The court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sunbeam Corp. v. Payless Drug Stores
...of the defendant. Kraft Corrugated Containers, Inc., v. Trumbull Asphalt Co., D.C.N.J., 31 F.Supp. 314, 316; William F. Luebke Co. v. Manhardt, D.C. E.D.Wis., 37 F.Supp. 13, 15; Porter v. Shoemaker, D.C.M.D.Pa., 6 F.R.D. 438, 441. From what sources defendants obtained the Sunbeam products w......
-
LOUISIANA FARMERS'PU v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC T. CO.
...1 F.R.D. 205, Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co. v. Nashville Coal Co. et al., D.C., 37 F.Supp. 728, 733, and William F. Luebke Co. v. Manhardt et al., D.C., 37 F.Supp. 13, cases, among other things, construing Rule 12(e), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c; Monarch Tobacco Works v. Ameri......
-
Ketcher v. SHEET METAL WORKERS'INTERNATIONAL ASS'N
...a conspiracy complaint against a motion to dismiss, which complaint was obviously drawn in rather general terms. In Luebke Co. v. Manhardt, D.C.Wis., 37 F.Supp. 13, 14, the Court in passing upon a motion for a more definite statement and for a bill of particulars said: "In actions to recove......
-
LOUISIANA FARMERS'PROTECTIVE UNION v. Great A. & P. Tea Co.
...173; Hicks v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co., 9 Cir., 87 F.2d 583; Stewart-Warner Corp. v. Staley, D.C., 42 F.Supp. 140; Luebke Co. v. Manhardt, D.C., 37 F.Supp. 13; Metzger v. Breeze Corp., D.C., 37 F.Supp. 693; Kentucky-Tennessee L. & P. Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., D.C., 37 F.Supp. 728. The c......