Willard M. Noble and Etta M. Noble v. McClatchy Newspapers, a Corporation, Willard M. Noble and Etta M. Noble v. McClatchy Newspapers, a Corporation

Willard Noble and his wife, Etta, were distributors of the Sacramento Bee newspaper. Their distributorship was cancelled. They brought this private antitrust action against McClatchy Newspapers, publisher of the Bee, and seven individuals. 1

Three claims are at issue on these appeals: First, that defendants violated section 1 of the Sherman Act to plaintiffs’ injury by terminating plaintiffs’ distributorship; second, assuming the lawfulness of the termination of plaintiffs’ distributorship that defendants violated section 1 of the Sherman Act to plaintiffs’ injury by preventing plaintiffs from selling their distributorship after termination; and third, that defendants violated section 2 of the Sherman Act to plaintiffs’ injury by monopolizing the publication of daily newspapers of general circulation in the relevant market.

The case was tried to a jury. The jury returned a verdict for defendants on claim one (the termination claim) and three (the monopolization claim), and for plaintiffs on claim two (the sale-of-business claim). Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs on the sale-of-business claim in the amount of $63,333.04 — $15,000 in damages, trebled, costs and…

(concurring and dissenting):

I am glad to concur in Judge Browning’s opinion, except with respect to its holding that the trial court should make no mention of treble damages in instructing the jury. I think that the trial court should “level” with the jury and make sure that the members thereof understand the respective responsibilities of jury and court with respect to damages, just as the trial judge in this case did.

Jurors, like other citizens, are entitled to know what the law is, even with respect to damages in antitrust cases; presumably, many of the people who serve on juries have some awareness in these matters. If no explanation is given as to who does the multiplying by three, the jury might well assume that the responsibility is theirs and thus do it without anyone becoming aware that the “damages” have already been trebled. A judge fixes damages in an antitrust case in full knowledge that the amount will be tripled; I see no valid reason why we should try to conceal from a jury the ultimate effect of their verdict.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

The petition for rehearing was held pending the decision in GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Continental T.V., Inc., 537 F.2d 980 (9th…

533 F.2d 1081 1975-2 Trade Cases 60,594 , 1 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 570 Willard M. NOBLE and Etta M. Noble, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. McCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, a corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Willard M. NOBLE and Etta M. Noble, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. McCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, a corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 72-2021, 72-2042. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Nov. 14, 1975. Rehearing Denied May 20, 1976. Richard Haas (argued), Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellants in 72-2021, for defendants-appellees in 72-2042. Timothy H. Fine (argued), of the Law Offices of G. Joseph Bertain, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees in 72-2021, for plaintiffs-appellants in 72-2042. OPINION Before BROWNING and TRASK, Circuit Judges, and GRAY, * District Judge. BROWNING, Circuit Judge: 1 Willard Noble and his wife, Etta, were distributors of the Sacramento Bee newspaper. Their distributorship was cancelled. They brought this private antitrust action against McClatchy Newspapers, publisher of the Bee, and seven individuals. 1 2 Three claims are at issue on these appeals: First, that defendants violated section 1…