Thomas Nelson Inc. v. Henry Regnery Co.

375 F. Supp. 335, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8808
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois
DecidedApril 26, 1974
DocketNo. 73 C 3144
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 375 F. Supp. 335 (Thomas Nelson Inc. v. Henry Regnery Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thomas Nelson Inc. v. Henry Regnery Co., 375 F. Supp. 335, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8808 (N.D. Ill. 1974).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BAUER, District Judge.

This cause comes on the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

This is an action seeking to redress the alleged breach and inducement to breach a contract between the plaintiff and defendant James Joseph. The jurisdiction of this Court is allegedly based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The amount in con-, troversy is alleged to exceed $10,000 exclusive of interest and costs.

The plaintiff Thomas Nelson, Inc. (“Nelson”) is a Tennessee corporation having its principal place of business in Nashville, Tennessee. The plaintiff and its predecessor have long been engaged in the business of publishing and marketing books throughout the United States. The defendant, the Henry Regnery Company (“Regnery”) is an Illinois corporation having its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. The defendant James Joseph is a citizen of the State of California and resides in Los Angeles, California.

On December 12, 1973, plaintiff Nelson filed a complaint against the defendants alleging breach of contract by Joseph, an author (Count I); tortious interference with contractual relations by Regnery, a publisher (Count II); and conspiracy to breach contract by Regnery and Joseph (Count III).

The plaintiff, in the complaint, alleges, inter alia, the following facts:

1. On or about April 14, 1961, plaintiff’s predecessor entered into a written agreement with defendant Joseph, the author of a book entitled Careers Outdoors, wherein the parties agreed to the publication of that book by plaintiff under the terms of the agreement. The agreement has not been terminated and remains in full force and effect. As a result of this agreement plaintiff and its predecessor, at substantial expense, prepared, published, promoted and sold defendant Joseph’s aforesaid book entitled Careers Outdoors, and plaintiff and its predecessor have at all times complied with the terms of said agreement. Plaintiff and its predecessor have published and sold approximately 100,000 copies of Careers Outdoors, said book currently being in its seventh printing, and plaintiff and its predecessor have accounted to and paid defendant Joseph all royalties due said defendant pursuant to the terms of the agreement. As a result of the aforesaid publication, promotion and sale of Careers Outdoors by plaintiff and its predecessor, plaintiff has acquired and now owns a valuable business in the marketing and sale of said book.

2. Pursuant to Paragraph 1 of this agreement, defendant Joseph granted and assigned all rights in the work to plaintiff; and in Paragraph 2C of said agreement, defendant Joseph agreed that he will not, without plaintiff’s written consent:

“. . . write, print, publish or produce, or cause to be written, printed, published or produced [337]*337during the continuance of this contract any other edition of said work or any work in any form of a similar character or title tending to interfere with or injure the sale of the Work in any manner.”

3. On or about July 23, 1973, the trade journal, “Publishers Weekly”, contained an advertisement announcing the publication of a book to be entitled 250 Careers Out-Of-Doors by defendant Joseph, to be published by defendant Regnery. Upon learning of the aforesaid announcement to the trade, plaintiff promptly objected and gave notice in writing to both defendants that the announced publication of 250 Careers Out-Of-Doors would violate the agreement between defendant Joseph and plaintiff. As a result of plaintiff’s written notice to defendants, the publication date was initially postponed, but the defendants now threaten to proceed with the publication of the book under the title The Complete Out-Of-Doors Job, Business and Profession Guide, and plaintiff is informed and believes that the publication of said book is now imminent.

4. Defendants’ aforesaid book entitled The Complete Out-Of-Doors Job, Business and Profession Guide is a work of a similar character and title tending to interfere with or injure plaintiff’s sale of its aforesaid book. Defendants’ publication of their aforesaid book is likely to irreparably damage plaintiff and its business and, unless enjoined, is likely to destroy the market created by plaintiff for its aforesaid book by making the current edition of Careers Outdoors obsolete and outmoded.

5. Defendant Joseph’s aforesaid acts constitute a material breach of the agreement between plaintiff and defendant Joseph. Upon information and belief, defendant Joseph’s aforesaid breach of the agreement has been willful. Defendant Joseph’s aforesaid acts result in the unjust enrichment of said defendant.

6. Defendant Regnery is and has been fully aware of the aforesaid publication agreement between defendant Joseph and plaintiff, and is and has been on notice that the writing, printing, production or publication of the aforesaid book The Complete Out-Of-Doors Job, Business and Profession Guide constitutes a material breach of the agreement. Upon information and belief, defendant Regnery has interfered with the contractual relationship between plaintiff and defendant Joseph by inducing or otherwise purposely causing defendant Joseph to enter into an agreement with defendant Regnery to publish a book of a similar character and title to plaintiff’s aforesaid book in breach of the agreement. Defendant Regnery’s aforesaid acts result in the unjust enrichment of said defendant. Defendant Regnery’s aforesaid interference with the contractual relationship between plaintiff and defendant Joseph has caused, and is likely to cause, great and irreparable damage to plaintiff and plaintiff’s aforesaid business.

7. Notwithstanding the aforesaid notice and objection by plaintiff to defendant’s aforesaid announcement to the trade of the prospective publication of 250 Careers Out-Of-Doors, defendants have conspired to breach the agreement between plaintiff and defendant Joseph by proceeding with the publication of their new book under the title The Complete Out-Of-Doors Job, Business and Profession Guide, knowing that the book is similar in both character and title to plaintiff’s aforesaid book entitled Careers Out-Doors. Upon information and belief, defendants’ conspiracy to breach the aforesaid agreement was and is for the purpose of exploiting the market presently served by plaintiff’s aforesaid book, and will destroy the value of plaintiff’s book unless restrained by this [338]*338Court and will result in the unjust enrichment of defendants.

The plaintiff seeks the following damages:

1. Defendants, their agents; servants, employees, representatives and attorneys, and all others holding by, through or under defendants, or in active concert or participation with defendants, either separately or jointly, be enjoined and restrained, during the pendency of this action and thereafter during the continuance of the agreement dated April 14, 1961 from writing, printing, publishing or producing the book authored by defendant Joseph and entitled The Complete Out-Of-Doors Job, Business and Profession Guide, and any other work, for which plaintiff does not give its written consent, that is of a similar character or title tending to interfere with or injure the sale of plaintiff’s book entitled Careers Outdoors.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
375 F. Supp. 335, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-nelson-inc-v-henry-regnery-co-ilnd-1974.