Seff v. General Outdoor Advertising Co.

N.D. Ohio

Seff v. General Outdoor Advertising Co.

11 F.R.D. 596, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3733

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio

DecidedSeptember 12, 1950

DocketCiv. No. 25967

StatusPublished

This text of 11 F.R.D. 596 (Seff v. General Outdoor Advertising Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seff v. General Outdoor Advertising Co., 11 F.R.D. 596, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3733 (N.D. Ohio 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is a private anti-trust action. Plaintiff asked for and received leave to file an amended complaint and add a new party defendant. This new defendant, Central Outdoor Advertising Company, now moves to dismiss this action as to it because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

In deciding such motions the complaint must be construed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Plaintiff in paragraph 11 of the complaint charges all defendants with monopolizing interstate trade and with conspiracy among themselves to. place .unlawful restraints upon trade and commerce among the several states with such illegal conspiracy being directed against plaintiff. This charge alone states in bare outline the claim against defendant Central and is sufficient to warrant denial of the motion.

But plaintiff has expanded on this charge and it appears, reading the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff, that defendant General Outdoor Advertising Company and Central are two of the major outdoor advertising companies in the Country. While General owns a substantial part of the stock of Central, General and Central’s areas of business are noncompetitive. However, plaintiff and General do compete in the Akron area. Central, when it contracts for use of its advertising space with national advertisers, insists that these national advertisers use General’s facilities in the areas outside of Central’s operating area or be denied the use of Central’s facilities. Under such a contractual exaction, if true, General and Central effectively can and do exclude plaintiff from doing business with the national advertisers, [597]*597the alleged life-blood, of the outdoor advertising business; and if it can be proved, has the appearance of a violation of the antitrust acts.

It is my judgment that this motion must be denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is a private anti-trust action. Plaintiff asked for and received leave to file an amended complaint and add a new party defendant. This new defendant, Central Outdoor Advertising Company, now moves to dismiss this action as to it because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

In deciding such motions the complaint must be construed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Plaintiff in paragraph 11 of the complaint charges all defendants with monopolizing interstate trade and with conspiracy among themselves to. place .unlawful restraints upon trade and commerce among the several states with such illegal conspiracy being directed against plaintiff. This charge alone states in bare outline the claim against defendant Central and is sufficient to warrant denial of the motion.

But plaintiff has expanded on this charge and it appears, reading the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff, that defendant General Outdoor Advertising Company and Central are two of the major outdoor advertising companies in the Country. While General owns a substantial part of the stock of Central, General and Central’s areas of business are noncompetitive. However, plaintiff and General do compete in the Akron area. Central, when it contracts for use of its advertising space with national advertisers, insists that these national advertisers use General’s facilities in the areas outside of Central’s operating area or be denied the use of Central’s facilities. Under such a contractual exaction, if true, General and Central effectively can and do exclude plaintiff from doing business with the national advertisers, [597]*597the alleged life-blood, of the outdoor advertising business; and if it can be proved, has the appearance of a violation of the antitrust acts.

It is my judgment that this motion must be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 F.R.D. 596, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seff-v-general-outdoor-advertising-co-ohnd-1950.