Court Opinion

ID: 9786621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 23:59:31.66427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:46.898014
License: Public Domain

MemoRAndum. Order granting summary judgment dismissing complaint affirmed, with costs to defendant-respondent. Plaintiffs do not establish in support of their complaint and in opposition to the motion for summary judgment that they had a contract which could form a basis for a cause of action against defendant-respondent for interference; nor do they in any event show facts which would impute a personal liability to defendant-respondent for acts of tort chargeable to the corporations of which the latter was an officer and director. The causes of action based upon purported restraint of trade are not supported by any fact in plaintiffs’ proof in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. What is shown is that defendant-respondent attempted to prevent the extension of a franchise *984for plaintiffs to sell products of a single manufacturer of automobiles into close competition with a territory in which defendant-respondent bad an interest. There is hence not a sufficient showing of monopolistic practices to warrant a trial on that issue.