Document: 366 U.S. 683 81 S.Ct. 1309 6 L.Ed.2d 604 SAM FOX PUBLISHING COMPANY, Inc., et al., Appellants,v.UNITED STATES al. No. 56. Argued March 29 and 30, 1961. Decided May 29, Mr. Charles A. Horsky, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Daniel M. Friedman, appellee, The United States. John F. Dooling, Jr., New York City, American Society of Composers, Authors Publishers. Justice HARLAN, delivered the opinion Court. 1 appellants, proceeding under Expediting Act, 15 U.S.C. § U.S.C.A. appeal directly to this Court from an order District Southern denying their motions intervene as right in a modify consent decree previously entered government antitrust suit. appellants were not named parties either suit or modification proceeding.1 made pursuant Rule 24, subdivision (a)(2) Federal Rules Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.2 2 matter arises following setting: In 1941 States brought Sherman 1, against Publishers (ASCAP), unincorporated association which are members, certain its officers. defendant officers besides being entity individuals, respectively, also sued representatives all members Society. Society, comprising some 6,400 writers publishers musical compositions, was organized take nonexclusive licenses works license such out public performance, distribute among revenues resulting therefrom. three Society's publisher members. 3 Government's complaint action aimed at two distinct types violation: (1) alleged restraint trade arising ASCAP's mode dealing with outsiders desiring compositions catalogue; (2) competition inter sese, asserted domination affairs by few large who, it claimed, able control complexion Board Directors apportionment revenues. As latter type restraint, prayer relief sought insure (a) that elections be no method 'other than membership vote * shall have vote,' (b) distribution revenue should on 'fair non-discriminatory' basis. It is apparent record appellants' particular interests related entirely second aspect charges, those involving internal affairs, so directed. 4 During same year settled decree, approved addition provisions what may called external broad terms, contained requirements distributions equitable Subsequent both share accorded weighted basis relative member's contribution revenue-producing value members' catalogue, determined Directors. 1950, reservation-of-jurisdiction clause original effected instance Government. modified ordered, other things, 'in democratic administration ASCAP (the composition the) shall, far practicable, give representation writer different participations *.' 1959, concern 'democratic (internal) affairs' led Government press further amendments decree. 1960 resulted additional court-approved modifications which, apparent, represented substantial improvement over earlier relating Contending proposed did go enough towards ameliorating position small publishers, prior adoption intervention now before us. denied leave without opinion, stating order: 5 '* applicants Department adequate ad interest; consent; permitted cause they proceed judgment; would promote justice permit requested Thereafter judgment approving existing Appellants do judgment, but only right. We postponed consideration question jurisdiction hearing case merits. 362 986, 80 1075, 1020. 7 correctly agree, controlling issue jurisdiction, answer determines merits appeal, whether entitled these proceedings 'of right.' Sutphen Estates, Inc. v. States, 342 19, 72 s,.Ct. 14, 96 L.Ed. where said: 'If appellant right, court appealable.' Id., page 20, 16. That requires rejection separate contention below appealable because final,3 appellate review has become moot, taken eventuating sought. based erroneous hypothesis obtainable connection judgment. 8 determinative question—whether right'—depended upon showing 'the of' 'interest parties' might 'be inadequate,' bound (the) judgment' proceeding. See note 2, supra. I. 9 first contend proven inadequate. Although most recent reduced limited 10 largest provided more favorable past smaller less well-established amelioration break larger therefore been Apart anything else, sound policy strongly lead us decline invitation assess wisdom negotiating accepting least absence any claim bad faith malfeasance part acting. However, we need reach adequacy because, hereafter shown, event clear proceedings, if litigation deemed aligned Columbia Gas & Electric Corp., 27 F.Supp. 116, 119. 11 regard fully person whose private coincide interest nonetheless evn tuality litigation, hence not, it. Borden Co., 347 514, 74 703, 98 903, ruled abuse discretion refuse injunction acts held violative laws, even though had already enjoined there stated clearest terms 'private actions designed cumulative, mutually exclusive' (id., 518, 706), and, quoting Bendix Home Appliances, F.R.D. 73, 77, "* (T)he scheme statute sharply distinguish between suits, criminal civil, suits injunctive treble damages. Different considerations govern each these. They simultaneously disregard other." pages 518—519, 706. 12 This principle certainly make just stranger, parties, similarly situated, litigation. General 95 165; supra; Radio Corporation, 23; cf. Loew's 136 13. Indeed Clayton 16, making adjudication liability prima facie evidence suit, seem definitive legislative pronouncement cannot preclusive subject matter. 13 Regarding aspect, conclude Allen Calculators, National Cash Register 322 137, 140—141, 64 905, 907, 88 1188. II. 14 presents difficult question. Their acting through Directors, could adequately represent very caught practical remain impossibility obtaining weighting votes Since Board, negotiated present represents, words complaint, core 'unlawful combination conspiracy' seek relief, hardly doubtful, taking, think should, face value, ASCAP, law discrete Board. But inadequacy negotiations can rise intervention, must demonstrate On score argue 'class' defendants association, (Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 17(b)) representing 23(a)(1)). Tunstall Brotherhood Locomotive Firemen Enginemen, Cir., 148 F.2d 403. 16 arguing, however, dilemma: class will bind e en Hansberry Lee, 311 32, 61 115, 85 22; yet presupposes intervenor's represented. Thus argument divergence themselves proves too much, extent valid considered defendants, 'bound.' hand, class, adequate, precluding intervene. indeed strange procedure declare, one represents properly then, require fact. cases establishing Smith Swormstedt, How. 288, 942; Supreme Tribe Ben-Hur Cauble, 255 356, 41 338, 65 673; see supra, situation result. 17 Any doubt exist dispelled once recognized violations, illegal combinations. doubtless true 'may be' insofar deals Society; nor adequate.4 does follow this, nature, itself unitary representative purpose also, containing principal factions internecine dispute. Cf. Owen Paramount Productions, 557. Or, put differently, claims defenses nothing bring them into simply 'bound' purposes. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 13(g). 18 Turning Court, remarks 'members surrendered (their) individuals,' (R. 295) 'are consent,' susceptible interpretations. If referring assertedly nature view discussed above, same. purport order, appears been, elsewhere intimated, quite apart actual contractual associational relation free enter withdraw, concerned, privies precluded inadequate representation. With respect, begs question, precisely that, choice other, dominance publih ers within restricts competitive opportunities industry. 19 sum, relationship subvert here unquestionably permitting plaintiffs violators Government: defense requiring III. 20 There remaining arguments disposed briefly. First, said determine diverged ASCAP. perceive occasion procedure, shows respects phase relates assert favor expanded respect binding effect 21 Second, legally bringing action, nevertheless existence outstanding comity preclude operate limit future equity reason why consider minimum insuring broader income out, considerable weight feel constrained build foundations 23. abundantly equivalent bound, party Credits Commutation Co. 177 311, 636, 44 782; Cameron President Fellows Harvard College, 157 993; Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. Local 6167, 251. Indeed, indistinguishable litigant involved said, plaintiff exists instance. 22 Inasmuch be, aspects application dismissed. 23 Dismissed. 24 CLARK took decision case. Besides San Fox Publishing Company Pleasant Music Jefferson Company, like Sam Fox, music publishers. Movietone Corporation appealed, appear '(a) Intervention Right. Upon timely anyone action: when applicant's applicant moved permissive, discretionary, Court's order. 1188, contrary, significance denial permissive arise ostensibly fact conducting faith, collusively, negligently. No made.

Category: 8