Opinion ID: 318274
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 9 The court below concluded, in its careful and wide-ranging opinion that it lacked jurisdiction under both the Clayton, Robinson-Patman Act and the Sherman Act. Bearing in mind the deservedly high mortality rate of summary dispositions of such litigation as this, 8 and the disfavor with which such dispositions are viewed, 9 we conclude that plaintiffs show arguable jurisdiction under the Sherman Act, stemming from the magnitude of the intrastate ready-mix sale and its close nexus to the construction of the shipyard, a massive instrumentality of interstate and foreign commerce-- a showing sufficient, at any rate, to make us unwilling to dispose of those claims on jurisdictional grounds. As to Clayton, Robinson-Patman, however, plaintiffs clearly fall short. 10 They properly concede that their competitor's only sale of concrete here involved was entirely intrastate; 10 though ingredients which had travelled interstate, such as cement, were involved, '. . . all the interstate ingredients were mixed together within the confines of Pascagoula, Mississippi, and delivered to Litton there.' This is fatal. Littlejohn v. Shell Oil Co., 483 F.2d 1140 (5th Cir. 1973); Hiram Walker, Inc. v. A & S Tropical, Inc., 407 F.2d 4 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 901, 90 S.Ct. 212, 24 L.Ed.2d 177 (1969). Nor does the interstate movement of mere ingredients suffice. Belliston v. Texaco, Inc., 455 F.2d 175 (10th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 408 U.S. 928, 92 S.Ct. 2494, 33 L.Ed.2d 341 (1972). And though we recognize that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a second-line injury case where our Brethren of the Ninth Circuit have dispensed with the requirement of interstate sale on the ground that sales of a commodity to be used in constructing an instrumentality of interstate commerce were involved, 11 and that thus a new deliverance in this area may soon come, we are not disposed to depart from our recent decision, supported by well-nigh universal precedent, that interstate sales must be involved for jurisdiction to attach under these acts. Littlejohn v. Shell Oil Co., 483 F.2d 1140 (5th Cir. 1973); Cf. Mayer Paving & Asphalt Co. v. General Dynamics Corp., 486 F.2d 763 (7th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1146, 94 S.Ct. 899, 39 L.Ed.2d 102 (1974). We therefore pretermit further discussion of the Clayton, Robinson-Patman Act claims. The Sherman Act Claims 11 We have searched the record in vain for evidence supporting plaintiffs' allegations of a combination or conspiracy against them between Litton and anyone in the area of plaintiffs' claims. Proof of this is, of course, essential to plaintiffs' case under 1 of the sherman Act and to its conspiracy claims under 2. First Nat'l Bank v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968); Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 869, 19 L.Ed.2d 998 (1968); Crummer Co. v. Du Pont, 223 F.2d 238 (5th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 848, 76 S.Ct. 85, 100 L.Ed. 755 (1955). Facing defendants' sworn challenge to the existence of such a conspiracy, it was up to plaintiffs to produce significant probative evidence-- by affidavit or deposition-- demonstrating that a genuine issue of fact existed as to this element of the complaint, if summary judgment was to be avoided. First Nat'l Bank v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289-290, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968). The evidence indicates conduct by Litton, albeit pursued in a roughshod way, consistent with its own business purposes, 12 not in concert with but rather at the expense of plaintiffs' competitor and at cross purposes with United. 12 Taking up in order the four Litton actions of which plaintiffs primarily complain, 13 the repeated rebidding and terminal negotiations required by Litton were entirely consistent with a legitimate purpose to obtain the best price and were not improper under Mississippi law. 14 At all times, Litton and Parsons specifically reserved the right to reject any and all bids. Plaintiffs' assertion that its initial and subsequent low bids gave it some right of which it was illegally deprived, and that Litton's actions in requiring rebids and in dickering with the bidders were conspiracy, are therefore ill-founded. 13 As for the designation of United as 'sole source' of cement, and its quotation of a lower price to plaintiffs' competitor than to plaintiffs, these do not evidence a conspiracy against plaintiffs, whatever else they may indicate. United did not originate the price differential, it took it as it found it. So far from conspiring with Litton to maintain it, the record indicates strenuous efforts by Litton to persuade United's Reese to quote the same price to both ready-mix bidders and his refusal to do so on advice of his counsel that such an action would interfere with the competitive situation and lay United open to some such suit as this. There is no evidence here of a combination to price-disadvantage plaintiffs, rather the contrary. Nor do plaintiffs allege or offer proof that United's advent as 'sole supplier' froze the cement quotation to plaintiffs. For all that appears in the record, United would have been pleased to meet any lower price which plaintiffs could have confronted it with-- down, at least, to that which it had quoted the competitor. No bias against plaintiffs appears here; indeed, as Reese averred, United would have preferred plaintiffs get the contract so as to sell the same amount of cement at a larger profit. Thus, however unsavory the 'sole supplier' posture which United assumed may be thought, it was not plaintiffs against whom it militated but plaintiffs' cement supplier, not a party here. 14 Finally, the 'divulging' to plaintiffs' competitor by Litton of the spurious bid of $11.62 was plainly unilateral action by Litton, however questionable, and we seek in vain for the presence or action of any coconspirator in such conduct. The record is clear that United did not even know of it, nor was it conduct which could conceivably have advanced the scheme to put United forward as sole source or supplier. And were we disposed to see the gulled competitor as a conspirator-- the beneficiary, though overreached, of some understanding with Litton to shut plaintiffs out-- there are no allegations to this effect. 15 In short, the evidence reveals nothing which by any method short of Procrustes' can be made to demonstrate a conspiracy to injure plaintiffs. The Sherman Act is neither a lowest-responsible-bidder statute nor a panacea for all business affronts which seem to fit nowhere else. Parmelee Transportation Co. v. Keeshin, 186 F.Supp. 533 (N.D.Ill.1960), aff'd, 292 F.2d 794 (7th Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 944, 82 S.Ct. 376, 7 L.Ed.2d 340 (1961). 16 Insofar as plaintiffs' complaints assert an attempted monopolizing of the ready-mix market by means of the various maneuvers noted above in the course of a one-time sale for use to Litton, proofs are entirely lacking of the relevant market, its condition, or of a monopoly or dangerous probability of one. See, e.g., Cliff Food Stores, Inc. v. Kroger, Inc., 417 F.2d 203 (5th Cir. 1969). and having correctly disposed of the federal claims, the court below properly dismissed plaintiffs' pendant state antitrust and common-law claims without prejudice, for adjudication by an appropriate state tribunal. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966). 17 Affirmed.