Dimidowich

Dimidowich v. Bell & Howell

Good Law
590 F. Supp. 45
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 19, 1984CV S 82-1086-EDPCalifornia3,906 words

Opinion

Opinion

Price, J.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDERS

Plaintiff brings this action alleging multiple trade-restraint types of causes of action. Presently pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for a mandatory temporary injunction and the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.

The facts underlying this action are relatively simple and are generally not in dispute.

Bell and Howell (hereinafter defendant) manufactures, distributes, sells and services micro-imagery products. Among all of the producers of such goods, defendant occupies a position of third place in the domestic market, behind Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. (3M) and Kodak. Unlike some of its competitors, defendant refuses to sell replacement parts for its equipment except through its own service organization or directly to an owner-user of defendant’s products. Except as an incidental result of their parts sales policy, defendant does not require a purchase of defendant’s machines to agree to allow them to be serviced by defendant’s service organization.

Plaintiff formerly worked for defendant as a service man. He left their employ several years ago and established his own business, which includes servicing…

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.