2004 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-25-2004

2660 Woodley Road v. ITT Sheraton Corp

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 02-1297

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"2660 Woodley Road v. ITT Sheraton Corp" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 647.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/647
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

Nos. 02-1297/1418

 

2660 WOODLEY ROAD JOINT VENTURE;

WOODLEY ROAD ASSOCIATES, INC.;

JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

*SUMITOMO LIFE REALTY (N.Y.) INC.

v.

ITT SHERATON CORPORATION;

SHERATON OPERATING CORPORATION;

WASHINGTON SHERATON CORPORATION**

ITT Sheraton Corporation,

Sheraton Operating Corporation and

Washington Sheraton Corporation,**

Appellant No. 02-1297

(*Dismissed per the Clerk Order of 5/23/02)

(**Dismissed per the Court Order of 9/25/02)

 

2660 WOODLEY ROAD JOINT VENTURE;

WOODLEY ROAD ASSOCIATES, INC.;

JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

*SUMITOMO LIFE REALTY (N.Y.) INC.

Appellants No. 02-1418

v.

ITT SHERATON CORPORATION;

SHERATON OPERATING CORPORATION;

WASHINGTON SHERATON CORPORATION**

(*Dismissed per the Clerk Order of 5/23/02)

(**Dismissed per the Court Order of 9/25/02)
 

*Honorable William W. Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge, Northern

District of California, sitting by designation.

 

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the District of Delaware

(D.C. Civ. No. 97-cv-00450)

Chief District Judge: Hon. Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.

 

BEFORE: ALITO and McKEE, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER,*Senior

District Judge

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Slip Opinion filed in this case on May 25,

2004, be amended as follows:

On page 7, footnote 7, delete “Hancock also alleges that the rebate scheme

put it at a competitive disadvantage to Sheraton-owned hotels because. 

According to Hancock, “the rebate scheme impacted the Hotel differently

than it did Sheraton-owned hotels: The rebate program increased the costs

of the goods and services [Hancock] purchased on behalf of the Hotel,

whereas the rebate scheme did not impose a real cost on Sheraton-owned

hotels, which simply ‘paid’ the kickback to their corporate parent.” Replace

it with “Hancock also alleges that the rebate scheme put it at a competitive

disadvantage to Sheraton-owned hotels because, according to Hancock, “the

rebate scheme impacted the Hotel differently than it did Sheraton-owned

hotels: The rebate program increased the costs of the goods and services 

[Hancock] purchased on behalf of the Hotel, whereas the rebate scheme did

not impose a real cost on Sheraton-owned hotels, which simply ‘paid’ the

kickback to their corporate parent.” 

At page 9, delete “The carpenters’ unions may well have had a cause of

action under other statutes or common law, and a different plaintiff may

have had a cause of action under the antitrust statues.” Replace it with

“The carpenters’ unions may well have had a cause of action under other

statutes or common law, and a different plaintiff may have had a cause of

action under the antitrust statutes.”
At page 9, delete “In arriving at that decision, the Court read the antitrust

statues in light of their common law background and read a “proximate

cause element into § 4 [Clayton Act] actions.” Greater Rockford Energy,

998 F.2d at 394.” Replace it with “In arriving at that decision, the Court

read the antitrust statutes in light of their common law background and read

a “proximate cause element into § 4 [Clayton Act] actions.” Greater

Rockford Energy, 998 F.2d at 394.”

At page 13, delete “The jury found that Hancock suffered $250,000 in

damages related to the purchasing services program and it also awarded

$1,100,00 for Sheraton’s breach of fiduciary duty.” Replace it with “The

jury found that Hancock suffered $250,000 in damages related to the

purchasing services program and it also awarded $1,100,000 for Sheraton’s

breach of fiduciary duty.” 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Theodore A. McKee 

Circuit Judge

Dated: May 25, 2004

CLC\cc: Robert L. Bronston, Esq.

 Andrew L. Frey, Esq.

 Evan M. Tager, Esq.

 Thomas A. Arena, Esq.

 John W. Shaw, Esq.

 William E. Wallace III, Esq.