Opinion ID: 508416
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Improper Instructions on Interstate Commerce

Text: 14 Plaintiff now claims that the jury was improperly instructed on the interstate commerce element of Wells' claims. On each count, the jury was asked whether the defendants' allegedly anticompetitive activities unreasonably restrain[ed] a substantial amount of commerce between the states. On both counts, the jury answered no. Appellant argues that it was improper to constrict the focus of the interstate commerce element to the challenged activities of the defendants. Instead, Wells contends, the questions should have been (1) whether defendants' activities generally were in or affected interstate commerce, and then (2) whether there was a connection, in practical economic terms, between defendants' activities generally and those particular activities challenged in the lawsuit as anticompetitive. 15 If we could consider the argument, it would have substance. In McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans, 444 U.S. 232, 100 S.Ct. 502, 62 L.Ed.2d 441 (1980), the Supreme Court held that an antitrust plaintiff does not have to prove a direct, particularized connection between the challenged activity and interstate commerce. 444 U.S. at 242-43, 100 S.Ct. at 509-10. If establishing jurisdiction required a showing that the unlawful conduct itself had an effect on interstate commerce, jurisdiction would be defeated by a demonstration that the alleged restraint failed to have its intended anticompetitive effect. This is not the rule of our cases. Id. at 243, 100 S.Ct. at 509 (citations omitted). 16 But despite some language suggesting the contrary in McLain, see id. at 242, 100 S.Ct. at 509, neither is it sufficient merely to show that some aspect of the defendant's activity generally had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. If that were the case, the interstate commerce element would invariably be satisfied without even an inkling of proof that the challenged activity was in any way connected to that part of the defendant's business that affected interstate commerce. Rather, we have held, in Cordova & Simonpietri Ins. Agency Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 649 F.2d 36, 45 (1st Cir.1981), that the proper focus is on language found later in McLain, emphasizing the requirement that [defendants'] activities which allegedly have been infected by a[n] [anticompetitive] conspiracy be shown 'as a matter of practical economics' to have a not insubstantial effect on the interstate commerce involved. 444 U.S. at 246, 100 S.Ct. at 511 (quoting Hospital Building Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 745, 96 S.Ct. 1848, 1852, 48 L.Ed.2d 338 (1976)). 17 We have interpreted McLain as holding that a plaintiff need not prove that a defendant's unlawful activities actually affected interstate commerce; but ... [rather] that defendants' business still must be so connected with interstate commerce that it is logical, as a matter of practical economics, to believe that the unlawful activity will affect interstate commerce. Cordova & Simonpietri, 649 F.2d at 45. This reading has been adopted by numerous other circuits as well. See, e.g., Sarin v. Samaritan Health Center, 813 F.2d 755, 758 & n. 2 (6th Cir.1987); Seglin v. Esau, 769 F.2d 1274, 1280 (7th Cir.1985); Hayden v. Bracy, 744 F.2d 1338, 1343 & n. 2 (8th Cir.1984); Furlong v. Long Island College Hosp., 710 F.2d 922, 925-26 (2d Cir.1983); Crane v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 637 F.2d 715, 720-24 (10th Cir.1981) (en banc). But see Western Waste Service Systems v. Universal Waste Control, 616 F.2d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.1980) (only defendant's business generally need affect interstate commerce). It is this standard that appellants urge on us here, and we agree that it would have been proper to instruct the jury in such a manner. 18 Unfortunately for plaintiff, however, Wells' attorneys did not ask for the practical economics instruction at the charge conference prior to closing arguments. Instead, counsel proffered precisely the interpretation of McLain that we rejected in Cordova & Simonpietri. App. 3481-83. My only point, counsel contended, is my understanding of McLain as well as the Cordova case is it is not the alleged illegal acts that need to be in commerce, but rather activities of the defendants generally, illegal or legal. Id. at 3482-83. This request was properly rejected by the court, as it does not comport with our reading of McLain. 4 See Ouimette v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 740 F.2d 72, 76 (1st Cir.1984) (a requested instruction to the jury may be correctly refused if it is improper or erroneous). Although the court's eventual instruction to the jury erred in the other extreme, plaintiff never asked for a correct definition of the interstate commerce element. An exception on one ground cannot serve as the basis for another, on a different ground, on appeal. Gillentine v. McKeand, 426 F.2d 717, 723 n. 19 (1st Cir.1970). 5 19 Even if plaintiff's requested instruction had been proper, counsel failed to raise that objection again subsequent to the actual charge. According to a long line of precedents in this circuit, such an omission constitutes waiver of the objection pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51. 6 See, e.g., Brown v. Freedman Baking Co., Inc., 810 F.2d 6, 9 (1st Cir.1987); Coy v. Simpson Marine Safety Equipment, Inc., 787 F.2d 19, 26 (1st Cir.1986); Emery-Waterhouse Co. v. Rhode Island Hosp. Trust Nat'l Bank, 757 F.2d 399, 411 (1st Cir.1985); McGrath v. Spirito, 733 F.2d 967, 968-69 (1st Cir.1984); Monomoy Fisheries, Inc. v. Bruno & Stillman Yacht Co., 625 F.2d 1034, 1036 (1st Cir.1980); Carrillo v. Sameit Westbulk, 514 F.2d 1214, 1219 (1st Cir.1975); United States v. Taglianetti, 456 F.2d 1055, 1056-57 (1st Cir.1972); Rivera v. Rederi A/B Nordstjernan, 456 F.2d 970, 976 (1st Cir.1972); Dunn v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 370 F.2d 681 (10th Cir.1966) (Aldrich, J., sitting by designation); Marshall v. Nugent, 222 F.2d 604, 615 (1st Cir.1955). 20 In this case, the court gave counsel abundant opportunity to object to the charge after it was given. An extensive post-charge conference was held with all counsel present. Counsel for the defendants took numerous exceptions to the charge. Plaintiff's attorney did reiterate several of his prior requests and exceptions, but with no mention of interstate commerce. Given this ample opportunity at the post-charge conference, appellant cannot now be said to have avoided waiver of its exception to the interstate commerce charge. See Joia v. Jo-Ja Service Corp., 817 F.2d 908, 917 (1st Cir.1987). 21 With that waiver, the instruction as given becomes the law of the case. See Shepp v. Uehlinger, 775 F.2d 452, 455-56 (1st Cir.1985) (citing Moomey v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 429 F.2d 1184, 1187 (10th Cir.1970)). That being so, the jury's answers leave appellant without any finding of the necessary element of interstate commerce. Without that finding, appellant has not met its burden of proving a Sherman Act violation. 22 We have recognized a plain error exception for failures to adhere to Rule 51. However, the plain error rule should be applied sparingly and only in exceptional cases or under peculiar circumstances to prevent a clear miscarriage of justice. Nimrod v. Sylvester, 369 F.2d 870, 873 (1st Cir.1966). We have adopted the standard for plain error in the Rule 51 context expressed by professors Wright and Miller:  'If there is to be a plain error exception to Rule 51 at all, it should be confined to the exceptional case where the error has seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'  Morris v. Travisono, 528 F.2d 856, 859 (1st Cir.1976) (quoting 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure Sec. 2558, at 675 (1971)). At the time Morris was decided, we had never reversed a civil case on this basis, 528 F.2d at 859, and we have continued to acknowledge the plain error rule without, to our knowledge, ever using it to upset a verdict. See, e.g., Elwood v. Pina, 815 F.2d 173, 176 (1st Cir.1987); Almonte v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 787 F.2d 763, 769 (1st Cir.1986); Coy v. Simpson Marine Safety Equipment, Inc., 787 F.2d 19, 26 (1st Cir.1986); Ouimette v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 740 F.2d 72, 76 n. 4 (1st Cir.1984); McGrath v. Spirito, 733 F.2d 967, 969 (1st Cir.1984). We find no exceptional or peculiar circumstances that make the present case any different. The plain error exception is inappropriate here, especially since plaintiff's requested instruction at the pre-charge conference represented a misstatement of the applicable law.