Case-Swayne Co., Inc., a Corporation v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., a Corporation

369 F.2d 449 CASE-SWAYNE CO., Inc., a corporation, Appellant, v. SUNKIST GROWERS, INC., a corporation, Appellee. No. 20070. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. November 21, 1966. Rehearing Denied January 12, 1967. 1 William Henderson, of Johnson & Harmon, Salt Lake City, Utah, for appellant. 2 Beardsley, Hufstedler & Kemble, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. 3 Before JERTBERG and ELY, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, District Judge. JAMESON, District Judge: 4 This is an action seeking treble damages under section 4 of the Clayton Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 15 ) 1 for alleged monopoly and attempt to monopolize in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act ( 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 2). 2 The district court granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's case. 3 5 Plaintiff (appellant), Case-Swayne, Inc., is engaged in the manufacture of single strength juices (canned orange juice and blends of orange juice with other fruit juice) as an independent operator. Defendant (appellee), Sunkist Growers, Inc., is an association of citrus producers. 4 It has as its base 12,000 citrus growers in Southern California and Arizona. The…

This is an action seeking treble damages under section 4 of the Clayton Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 15 ) 1 for alleged monopoly and attempt to monopolize in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act ( 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 2). 2 The district court granted the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s case.

Plaintiff (appellant), Case-Swayne, Inc., is engaged in the manufacture of single strength juices (canned orange juice and blends of orange juice with other fruit juice) as an independent operator. Defendant (appellee), Sunkist Growers, Inc., is an association of citrus producers. 4 It has as its base 12,000 citrus growers in Southern California and Arizona. The growers are organized into local associations which operate packing houses. The associations-in turn are grouped into district exchanges and representatives from the exchanges make up the governing board of Sunkist. The Sunkist organization handles its members’ fruit in effect from tree to store.

Appellant contends that the district, court erred (1) in granting the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict; and (2) in ruling that Sunkist was organized in conformance with section 1 of the…

(dissenting in part):

I agree with the result reached by the majority, and I concur in its opinion except for that portion in which it is held that Sunkist falls within the exemption of section 1 of the Capper-Volstead Act, 7 U.S.C. § 291 .

The principal reason offered by the majority in support of the view which I question is its asserted belief that the question was settled in Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co., 370 U.S. 19 , 82 S.Ct. 1130 , 8 L. *463 Ed.2d 305 (1962). I do not so interpret that decision. The particular issue was not presented to the Supreme Court, and it was not adjudicated. It was apparently conceded by the parties in Winckler, of which the appellant here was not one, that Sunkist was covered by the CapperVolstead exemption. In the prior opinion of the Court of Appeals, reported at 284 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1960), the only discussion of the exemption pertained to its extent, not to whether or not it was applicable. Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in granting certiorari, 368 U.S. 813 , 82 S.Ct. 56 , 7 L.Ed.2d 22 .(1961), expressly limited its consideration to a single question, namely,

Even if the issue had been determined by the…