Citations
- 241 F. Supp. 259
Full opinion text
HEMPHILL, Chief Judge.
Originally instituted November 12, 1964, this action seeks relief to which plaintiffs allege entitlement, for damages and injunctive relief under provisions of the Clayton Act, (15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 16) and the Sherman Act, (15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2), particularly 15 U.S.C. § 15. In addition to treble damages demanded in the amount of $1,500,000, plaintiffs ask attorneys’ fees, costs and injunctive relief. In substance plaintiff alleges:
“Beginning on or about January 1963 and continuing to the present time, defendants have been engaged continuously in a combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in groceries and other items customarily sold in grocery stores, including milk and dairy products, in an attempt to monopolize trade and commerce in these commodities in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.”
In addition plaintiffs “spell out” the purported acts of violation.
Certain defendants plead:
“All.of the defendants, Except the Defendants Commodore Points Terminal Corp. (Fla.) and Piggly Wiggly Corp. (Del.), move the Court under Rules 12,17(a), and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as follows:
“FIRST: To dismiss the action because the Complaint fails to state a claim against the Defendants upon which relief can be granted. Section 4 of the Clayton Act provides, “That any person * * * injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the anti-trust laws may sue therefor * * *” * * * 15 U.S.C. § 15. However, since the remedy is extraordinary, the language, “any person * * * injured” has been strictly construed, and the availability of the remedy has been limited to persons who stand in some immediate or direct relationship to the violator. The Complaint fails to show on its face any direct relationship between the Plaintiff and these Defendants, but rather shows some farmers proceeding against an individual, a distributor, a wholesaler, and some retailers with whom the farmers have never been in- privity of contract or in direct relationship, nor are the parties competitors.
“SECOND: To dismiss the action, because the Complaint fails to state a claim against these Defendants upon which relief can be granted. All of the acts complained of as being anti-trust violations are acts affecting milk which is regulated by the South Carolina Dairy Commission. These same Defendants were attacked by these same Plaintiffs in conspiracy with others on the same charges of obtaining a dairy, and then producing, distributing, and selling milk at a substantially reduced price. The Dairy Commission, as a result, promulgated Regulation 4(1), providing that milk could not be sold below cost. Thereupon, numerous hearings were held before the Commission and the Courts, and a determination made that the milk prices