Hershel California Fruit Products Co. v. Hunt Foods, Inc.

Good Law
111 F. Supp. 732·1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3015
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 17, 195331833California1,827 words

Opinion

Opinion

Harris, J.

Plaintiffs, engaged in the business of canning and selling tomato products, seek a preliminary injunction against defendant corporation in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 26 . The primary relief which plaintiffs ask is that defendant be restrained from selling its tomato paste product at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor in the manufacture, sale and distribution of tomato paste, or for the purpose of monopolizing or attempting to monopolize interstate commerce in tomato paste.

Plaintiffs charge defendant with violation of (a) Section 2 of the Sherman AntiTrust Act, 15 U.S.CA. § 2, by reason of its monopolizing or. attempting to monopolize interstate trade or commerce in tomato paste;

(b) Section 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 13a,-by reason of its selling tomato paste at unreasonably low prices with intent to destroy competition or injure competitors.

Defendant points out that plaintiffs have the burden of establishing violations of the anti-trust laws and that they must make out more than a prima facie case in. order to obtain a preliminary injunction.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.