Court Opinion

ID: 9459784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:32:00.596123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:20.472782
License: Public Domain

SIMPSON, Circuit Judge, with whom JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, WISDOM, GODBOLD and LEWIS R. MORGAN, Circuit Judges,
join (concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I adhere to the views and holdings of my opinion for Judge Wisdom and myself, the majority of the panel by which this ease was originally decided. Little-john v. Shell Oil Company et al., 5 Cir. 1972, 456 F.2d 225.
On that basis, I concur in Part III of Judge Bell’s opinion for the en bane court, remanding this case to the district court to permit amendment to the plaintiff-appellant’s complaint and to allow him additional discovery from the defendants-appellees for the purpose of developing proof of one or more discriminatory sales in interstate commerce.
On the same basis, viz: the views expressed in my original panel opinion, I respectfully dissent from Parts I and II of the en banc court’s opinion by Judge Bell. I would continue to hold that Robinson-Patman1 subject matter jurisdiction was present by virtue of the allegations of the amended complaint that Shell Oil Company, American Oil Company and Sooner Oil Company used profits from interstate gasoline sales to underwrite discriminatory intrastate price-cutting tactics employed against Littlejohn, the plaintiff-appellant, without requiring any allegations that one or more discriminatory sales were in interstate commerce. As stated in the panel majority opinion, I construe this to be the teaching of Moore v. Mead’s Fine Bread Company, 1954, 348 U.S. 115, 75 S.Ct. 148, 99 L.Ed. 145.

. § 2(a) of the Clayton Aet as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13(a).