Legal Document

394 U.S. 700 89 Supreme Court Reporter 1391 22 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 658 NORFOLK MONUMENT COMPANY, Inc.v.WOODLAWN MEMORIAL GARDENS, INC., et al. Number 1040. April 21, 1969. Howard I. Legum and Louis baron Fine, for petitioner. 1 Frederick S. Albrink, respondent Woodlawn Memorial Gardens, Incorporated 2 William C. Worthington, respondents Rosewood Park, Inc., others. 3 Jefferson Brown, Gr enlawn Cemetery Park Corporation 4 Bernard Glasser Stuart D. Glasser, Roosevelt & 5 or Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 King, Jas. Matthews company of Virginia 6 PER CURIAM. 7 The petitioner, a retailer burial monuments bronze grave markers, brought this action damages injunctive relief under §§ 16 the Clayton Act, 38 Statutes-at-Large 731, 737, as amended, 15 Code KF62 15, 26, alleging that had violated Sherman 26 209, 1, 2, by conspiring to monopolize monopolizing manufacture sale markers. respondents—Matthews, manufacturer such five operators cemeteries (called 'memorial parks') sell markers—were charged with having jointly adopted various restrictive devices prevent, restrict, discourage sales markers petitioner installation in cemeteries. After extensive pretrial discovery, District granted respondents' motion summary judgment, concluding there was no material issue fact evidence conspiracy. 290 F.Supp. 1. Appeals affirmed. Cir., 404 Federal Reporter, 2nd 1008. 8 We cannot agree on record before jury could not have found conspired exclude from market As Circuit Judge Craven pointed out his dissenting opinion, disclosed following conduct part respondents: 9 '(1) Despite unskilled nature work, all memorial parks refuse permit plaintiff install sold it; them insist work be done themselves. 10 '(2) None charges lot owners separate fee case purchased 11 '(3) All require payment an installing plaintiff. plausibly maintains actual cost comes about $3. Yet, enormous fees are * *. 12 '(4) specific alloy content installed, reserve right reject non-conforming requirement happens same Matthews' is implicitly suggested pamphlet ('Modern Cemeteries') distributed its customers. except customers Matthews. 13 '(5) There Greenlawn, Princess Anne attempted dissuade purchasing affidavit plaintiff's president states numerous other incidents occurred. 14 '(6) Defendant Matthews, 'Modern Cemeteries,' suggests number practices which effect erect competitive barriers retailers than '(7) Many these been park defendants, evidenced affidavits record, 'rule books' Rosewood, Greenlawn. '(8) visits conferences representatives Matthews.' F.2d, at 1012—1014. 17 rules relating were reasonable '(i)n view continuing obligation perpetual care imposed upon cemeteries, (their) contracts *.' F.Supp., 3. But business justification disputed proffered required very little permanent that, any event, funds purpose already provided another source. reasonableness question whose resolution function court judgment. true inferences drawn pamphlet. dismissed it without possible significance because mere 'form book,' 'specifically points contains standards fair regulations cemetery would advised adopt but says '* permitted make recommendations reader consult own attorney."* Again self-serving disclaimer raised jury, surely did alone conclusively rebut petitioner's contention agreement among participate alleged practices. 18 Nor do findings necessarily dispel asked draw. found, example, 'a wide divergence prices' 'which completely negative systematic scheming conscious parallelism.' complaint, however, charging uniform they deliberately 'excessive unreasonable' injuring appeared consider dispositive conspiracy allegations principal officer 'admitted he has letters, agreements, correspondence, testimonials several defendants settled '(n)o formal necessary constitute unlawful conspiracy,' American Tobacco versus States, 328 781, 809, 66 1125, 1139, 90 L.Ed. 1575, 'business behavior admissible circumstantial finder may infer agreement.' Theatre Enterprises, Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 346 537, 540, 74 257, 259, 98 273. 19 express course, strength weakness case, hold only disproved discovery remained issues resolved after plenary trial. we cautioned before, 'summary procedures should used sparingly complex antitrust litigation where motive intent play leading roles, proof largely hands conspirators, hostile witnesses thicken plot.' Poller Columbia Broadcasting System, 368 464, 473, 82 486, 491, 458. 20 writ certiorari granted. judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 21 It so ordered. Reversed remanded. 23 Mr. Justice HARLAN, FORTAS, MARSHALL opinion denied. noted reason 'Matthews injunction prohibiting making suggestions quality installed parks.' 1013, n. 6. entered one three consent decrees prior actions against See 1014.

Classification Label: 7