Opinion ID: 3011286
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Additional Jurisdictional Evidence

Text: Offered To the District Court. The plaintiffs subsequently filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation with the District Court. In so doing, both they and the defendants submitted additional evidence to that Court for its consideration. For example the plaintiffs offered additional evidence intended to show that ORIA and the individual rug importers had pressured independent trade publications to reject advertising for the trade show. They offered Elsea's contemporaneously written notes of a September 1993 9 telephone conversation with Ron O'Callaghan of Decorative Rugs magazine, an independent trade publication, in which he recorded that O'Callaghan rejected his acceptance of  CGI's advertisements for the 1993 trade show. Elsea reported that O'Callaghan stated that if he printed the ads, ORIA and other importers would quit advertising, and that ORIA opposed the show and had pressured Decorative Rug magazine to run editorials against it. In response, the defendants offered a certification from O'Callaghan in which he denied that he made such statements, and specifically stated that none of the importers ever contacted him and threatened to quit advertising in his magazine if it accepted advertisements from Elsea for his Chicago trade show. The plaintiffs also offered a letter from an advertising consultant reporting that when the consultant tried to place an advertisement in Rug News, another independent trade publication, she was told by Rug News official Les Stroh that the advertisement would not be accepted because the trade show would damage the oriental rug importers. (JA.127). In response, the defendants offered excerpts from a deposition of Stroh, in which he testified that he never received any recommendation from ORIA not to accept ads from manufacturers. Stroh also denied ever having any conversations with anyone from ORIA pertaining to the acceptance or rejection of advertisements from manufacturers. (JA. 178-81). The plaintiffs also offered the minutes of a December 1993 ORIA executive board meeting, at which the board discussed CGI's November 1993 Chicago trade show. The minutes report a discussion concerning a memorandum that would be sent to all members about the operations of CGI, which held a trade fair in Chicago last November where they had cut out the role of the importer in the chain of distribution. Lee Harounian, an ORIA board member, suggested that ORIA members boycott the manufacturers participating in the show. The executive board ultimately decided that this memorandum should not go to all members but to the board members only. In addition, Elsea submitted a supplemental declaration in which he recounted that the owner of Istanbul Grand Bazaar (IGB), a company that both manufactures rugs in 10 Turkey and imports them into the U.S. (and therefore is a member of ORIA), expressed interest in participating in CGI's 1994 trade show, but said he would not be the only ORIA member to do so. Elsea asserted that he informed IGB's owner that another Turkish importer/manufacturer and ORIA member, Anadol Rugs, also was participating. Subsequently, Elsea claimed, he received a fax from Anadol Rugs informing him that Anadol had received a fax from ORIA concerning [its] participation in the trade fair. As a consequence, Anadol was canceling its participation in the trade fair. The fax, also offered as evidence, stated that Anadol ha[s] no intentions whatsoever to attend this exhibit[ion]. The fax further admonished CGI to please rectify this matter immediately, writing to [ORIA] that it was a mistake on your part. Neither Anadol nor IGB participated in the trade show. The plaintiffs also offered evidence of ORIA's historical efforts to prevent foreign manufacturers from selling directly to U.S. retailers. In 1992, Pakistani rug manufacturers sold some rugs directly to Bloomingdale's department store, an American retailer. In September of that year, following this sale, then-ORIA president (and defendant) Isaac Etessami wrote to the Pakistani Minister of Commerce complaining of this practice, with emphasis on EPB's subsidization of Bloomingdales' promotion. The letter reminded the Pakistani minister of the traditional, established and respected chain of distribution in the United States, to wit, MANUFACTURER/EXPORTER-- IMPORTER/WHOLESALER -- RETAILER -- CONSUMER. The letter also admonished Pakistani exporters to concentrate their promotion sales efforts on American importers and not attempt to involve themselves with retailers, who are the importers' customers. (Emphasis in original). The lengthy letter concluded with the exhortation: Work with the American importer in promoting your rugs and not around him. Finally, the plaintiffs offered a memorandum from the president of ORRA addressed to the ORRA board, written shortly after the president received the March 23, 1994 letter from then-ORIA president Hodges regarding potential ORRA sponsorship of CGI's 1994 trade fair. The memo read in part: 11 Over the past year ORRA has made significant progress in mending fences with its sister organization ORIA. . . . Last year a letter went out under my signature that effectively distanced ORRA from [CGI]. . . . The building process is slow . . . . . and it will come to a grinding halt, in my opinion, if we even entertain the notion of joining forces with [CGI]. Both Dan Hodges and Gene Newman have gone on record requesting that ORRA continue to disassociate itself from Mr. Elsea's efforts. In response, the defendants offered excerpts from the deposition of the ORRA president, in which she testified that nobody at ORIA [told her] . . . that moving away from an affiliation with another trade fair would improve relations.