Falstaff Brewing Co. v. Stroh Brewery Co.

Good Law
628 F. Supp. 822·1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29137
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 19, 1986C-85-1361-JPVCalifornia4,544 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vukasin, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs, Falstaff Brewing Company, General Brewing Company and Pearl Brewing Company, all wholly owned subsidiaries of plaintiff S & P Company [hereinafter collectively referred to as “Falstaff”] filed this civil action for damages, as well as for injunctive and declaratory relief on February 4, 1985. The original complaint alleged that defendants Stroh Brewery Company [“Stroh”], Joseph Englert, and four executives of Stroh conspired to restrain trade, attempted to monopolize the domestic beer market, and tortiously interfered with plaintiffs’ contract negotiations, all in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Anti-trust Act, and state law.

On May 2, 1985, this Court denied Stroh’s motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, instead quashing service of process, dismissing the complaint as to the Stroh executives, and granting defendant’s alternative motion for a more definite statement. On July 26, 1985, a more definite statement, in the form of an amended complaint, was filed. The matter now before the Court is defendant Stroh’s motion, joined in by defendant Englert, to dismiss the amended complaint.

II. THE…

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.