Youngson v. Tidewater Oil Company, Civ. 9020.

Decision Date20 September 1958
Docket NumberCiv. 9020.
Citation166 F. Supp. 146
PartiesW. W. YOUNGSON, Jr., and J. S. Baker, doing business as Youngson Auto Service, Plaintiffs, v. TIDEWATER OIL COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Oregon

Howard I. Bobbitt, Portland, Or., for plaintiff.

Gilley & Busey, Portland, Or., Rosling, Williams, Lanza & Kastner, Seattle, Wash., for defendant.

SOLOMON, Judge.

Plaintiff, a service station operator in Portland, Oregon, filed an action against defendant Tidewater Oil Company for treble damages and injunctive relief based upon alleged violations of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 13 and 15.

In his amended complaint he alleged that defendant unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff by selling the same gasoline and oil products to other dealers in Portland and the immediate area at lower prices, and by allowing discounts and rebates which were not given to plaintiff; and that such discrimination (1) caused competing dealers to reduce the retail price and thereby diverted customers from the plaintiff, and (2) caused competing dealers to sell at lowered prices which destroyed competition between plaintiff and the favored dealers, and (3) caused competing dealers to sell at a fictitious controlled price destroying competition between competing dealers, and between plaintiff and competing dealers.

On numerous occasions I have stated that Federal Courts in general and this court in particular have been reluctant to dismiss cases without a hearing on the merits. No such motion should be granted where a claim for relief has been defectively stated. It must appear from the allegation that no claim for relief exists. Gruen Watch Co. v. Artists Alliance, Inc., 9 Cir., 1951, 191 F.2d 700. During the hearing on the motion to dismiss the original complaint, it was agreed that in anti-trust actions the pleadings must contain a much more extensive statement of the facts than in a simple negligence or contract case and that generalities and legal conclusions are not sufficient to predicate a claim for violation of the Robinson-Patman Act upon which relief may be granted.

At the hearings on the motions to dismiss both the original and the amended complaints, the defendant contended that in order for plaintiff to prevail, he must plead and prove that he lost business directly to a dealer or dealers who received the benefits of discriminatory prices from the defendant, and who were in actual competition with the plaintiff. Defendant contended that the plaintiff failed to do this either in his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Uniroyal, Inc. v. Hoff and Thames, Inc., Civ. A. No. J77-0314(N).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • March 2, 1981
    ...Inc., 351 F.Supp. 1332 (S.D.Ala.1972); aff'd sub nom. Harrelson v. Texaco, Inc., 486 F.2d 1400 (5th Cir. 1973); Youngson v. Tidewater Oil Company, 166 F.Supp. 146 (Dist.Or.1958); Sheffield v. Texaco, 1957 Trade case ¶ 68657 (W.D.La.1957); Alexander v. Texas Company, 165 F.Supp. 53, 58 (W.D.......
  • Bolick-Gillman Company v. Continental Baking Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • December 28, 1961
    ...was a purchaser from the defendant and that he was in competition with one or all of the favored dealers. See Youngson v. Tidewater Oil Co., 166 F.Supp. 146, 147 (D.Ore., 1958); Alexander v. Texas Co., 149 F.Supp. 37, 41 (W.D.La., 1957); Baim & Blank, Inc. v. Philco Corp., 148 F.Supp. 541, ......
  • Rutledge v. Electric Hose & Rubber Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • January 30, 1975
    ...574, 90 L.Ed. 652 (1946); Secatore's, Inc. v. Esso Standard Oil Co., 171 F.Supp. 665, 667 (D.Mass.1959); and Youngson v. Tidewater Oil Co., 166 F.Supp. 146, 147 (D.Or.1958). We have perused the record and find no direct or inferential evidence in support of all the six necessary elements of......
  • Fowler Manufacturing Company v. Gorlick
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • September 25, 1969
    ...Oregon has previously taken an opposite view to that of Judge Lindberg, and has followed the Enterprise holding. Youngson v. Tidewater Oil Co., 166 F.Supp. 146 (D.C.Or. 1958). It further may be observed that denial of certiorari was made by the Supreme Court in both the Arden case, 326 U.S.......

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