Document: 382 U.S. 54 86 S.Ct. 203 15 L.Ed.2d 134 Marc D. LEH, etc., et al., Petitioners,v.GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION al. No. 4. Argued Oct. 11, 1965. Decided Nov. 8, Rehearing Denied Jan. 17, 1966. See 1001, 525. Richard G. Harris, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Francis R. Kirkham, San Francisco, respondents. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of Court. 1 On September 28, 1956, petitioners, a partnership engaged in wholesale distribution refined petroleum products and one partners, filed Southern District California trebledamage action charging violations §§ 2 Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, U.S.C. 1, (1964 ed.), against seven companies producing, refining, marketing gasoline other hydrocarbon substances interstate commerce. Defendants contended that was barred by one-year statute limitations applicable to suits statutory penalties or forfeitures, Cal.Code Civ.Proc. § 340(1). Plaintiffs conceded their cause accrued no later than February 1954, four-year limitation provision added Clayton Act 1955, 4B, 69 283, 15b not right accruing 1954. But plaintiffs governing three-year respecting actions on liability penalty, 338(1), any event running tolled 5(b) 38 731, 16(b) because civil antitrust proceeding commenced United States 1950 still pending when complaint. Section provides during pendency criminal instituted prevent, restrain, punish laws, shall be suspended respect every private 'based whole part matter complained said proceeding.'1 The lower courts upheld defense dismissed complaint, holding governed were entitled benefit 5(b), 208 F.Supp. 289 (D.C.S.D.Cal.1962), aff'd, 330 F.2d 288 (C.A.9th Cir. 1964). We granted certiorari limited question applicability 379 877, 85 148, 13 85, an apparent conflict between this case Union Carbide & Carbon Corp. v. Nisley, 300 561 (C.A.10th 1962), under Rule 60 sub nom. Wade Corp., 371 801, 83 13, 9 46, concerning interpretation requirement which tolling is sought of' government proceeding. conclude misapplied we reverse judgment below. Prior present case, Court Appeals Ninth Circuit had declared restrictive 5(b). In Steiner 20th Century-Fox Film 232 190 (1956), court ruled scope determined principles collateral estoppel 5(a) 16(a) final decree rendered suit defendant violation laws prima facie evidence such 'as all matters would parties thereto.'2 Accordingly, '(a) greater similarity needed same conspiracies are alleged. means must used achieve objectives defendants.' F.2d, at 196. purported follow concluded here, court's opinion, 'there only different overt acts charged, but conspiracies, occurring times, parties.' 301; see also F.Supp., 294—295. Conflicting with supra, held evidentiary rules determinative period if there 'substantial identity subject matter.' 570. 3 Minnesota Mining Mfg. Co. New Jersey Wood Finishing Co., 381 311, 1473, 14 405, decided interim granting oral argument establishes certain basic construction followed here. questions presented decision whether proceedings Federal Trade Commission 7 18 activate extent judicial and, so, claim Wood, plaintiff, based 'any action. One arguments advanced first did suspend because, it asserted, order might issue admissible 5(a). rejected contention coextensive. 4 'It may * enacted logical backstop clause even though complements permitting litigant await outcome use therein certainly restricted effect. As have pointed out, textual distinctions well policy basis indicate serve more comprehensive function congressional scheme things. Government's initial aid number ways. pleadings, transcripts testimony, exhibits documents available him most instances. Moreover, difficult law tested definitively resolved before enters fray. resources expertise its staff render suitor tremendous aside from value he derive decree. Indeed, so useful service recognized major source U.S., 319, S.Ct., 1477. 5 sweeps away much foundation view plaintiff required allege defendants. Rather, effect given broad terms itself—'based (emphasis added)—read light Congress' 'belief litigation surest weapons effective enforcement laws.' 318, Doubtlessly, care exercised insure reliance upon mere sham bear real relation plaintiff's relief. allow legitimate concern invocation made good faith lead them into niggardly language here question. With those mind now turn comparison plaintiffs' complaint rely, Standard Oil California, Civil 11584 C, D.C.S.D.Cal.3 6 charged Conservation Committee Producers conspired together restrain monopolize commerce Pacific area beginning about year 1936, continuing up including date 1950. divided conspiracy two principal branches: (1) agreement defendants eliminate competition among themselves (2) utilize control production, transportation, crude oil restrict independent producers, refiners marketers area. furtherance branch conspiracy, compalint further do actually accomplished following things, others: sharing retail markets each selling identical prices, thus confining advertising brand names offering free services outlets; fixing maintaining uniform noncompetitive prices sale retail; refusing sell distributor who failed refused fixed them; distributor, jobber, dealer except 'full-requirements' 'exclusive-dealer' basis. Among agreements having been second following: coercing producers limiting production through quotas established Committee; supply refiners; acquiring inducing shut down productive capacity dismantle refining facilities return furnish full requirements products; foreclosing otherwise requiring jobbers, wholesalers, retailers handle exclusively Plaintiffs' amended violate Act. varied somewhat action, alleging herein 1948 (the business) continued until filing 1956. proceeding, Shell Company named Olympic proceeding.4 agreed throughout southern excluding jobbers eliminating jobbers' customers, i.e., outlets, preventing customers competing outlets owned operated particular, alleged unlawful purposes acts: controlling area; denying access gasoline; obtaining sources; compete stations controlled defendants; fixed, artificial, price sold, all, dealers jobbers; generally sources precluding supply. claimed injury jobber business loss profits resulting price-fixing destruction termination 8 found principally differences 294 295. cannot agree these bar resort case. Here too find guidance Mining. manufacturer electrical insulation materials, brought Manufacturing Essex Wire Corporation, substance concerned acquisition Insulation Wires, Inc., thereafter ceased distribute products, trade products. relied suspending Essex. party interlocutory appeal difference prevented argue burden proof claims could Commission. This 'both set substantially claims,' 323, 1479, Mining's argument. 10 Just require conclusion suit, claimant invoke complains has breadth time participants described relies. substantial parties, six being well. kind, absence complete explained several grounds unrelated claimant's Government complained. become fact Or prefer limit his whose activities contributed directly complains. hand, some conspirators injured low selected co-conspirators necessarily broader net. overlap periods less complete, disparity equally without significance. That corresponding they obviously does mean Government. Nor can drawn focus area, concerned. 11 It obvious complaints marketers; retailers. Both retail. refiners, them, facilities; denied sources. To detailed duplication resurrect approach 12 contend, however, extensive discovery preceded ruling motion dismiss, concessions establishing that, whatever allege, Oil. claim, say, arrangement Refining supplied long General Petroleum replaced Corporation Olympic's supplier thereby terminated. attorney stated hearing trial absolute terminate done unilaterally court. General's relationship Olympic. particular contract far removed general, consideration face. Obviously suspension resolution successful proving allegations 316, 1476. Equally, availability dependent ability prove however fatal failure hopes success merits. defendants' contains flaw take account counsel said. subdistributorship, accordingly levels chain ultimate outlet. claimed, said, pressure exerted Olympic, plaintiffs, result industry commitment sub-distributorship operations 'because controlled. controlled, obviously, sold you company opposed bad company, acting distributor. went level.' Clearly obtain maintain marketing, complained, tighten elimination subdistributors. Counsel's statements simply filled out details general suspended, 16 Reversed. 17 HARLAN FORTAS took provides: '(b) Whenever section 15a title, arising thereof thereafter: Provided, whenever title hereunder, enforce forever unless either within four years after accrued.' 5(a), A heretofore hereafter behalf violated thereto: apply consent judgments decrees entered testimony taken title.' Emich Motors 340 558, 71 408, 95 L.Ed. 534. since terminated Texaco, dismissed. 1958 CCH Cases, 69,212; 1959 69,240; 69,399. prior defense.

Category: 7