First National Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co.
391 U.S. 253 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In an antitrust action, a plaintiff cannot defeat a defendant's properly supported motion for summary judgment by relying on inferences of conspiracy drawn from a refusal to deal when the defendant provides compelling evidence of legitimate, non-conspiratorial business reasons for its conduct. The plaintiff must present specific facts and significant probative evidence of an illegal conspiracy to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial.
Facts:
- In 1951, the Government of Iran nationalized the properties of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co.
- In response, other major international oil companies allegedly agreed to boycott any party that dealt in Iranian oil.
- Gerald B. Waldron secured a contract with the newly formed National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC) to purchase a large quantity of Iranian oil at a price substantially below the market rate.
- Cities Service Co., needing to secure a source of crude oil, entered into extensive negotiations with Waldron to purchase Iranian oil. W. Alton Jones, the president of Cities Service, traveled to Iran at Waldron's arrangement to inspect the nationalized oil facilities.
- During this trip, Jones also made a side trip to Kuwait to negotiate a separate, long-term oil supply contract with Gulf Oil Corp., one of the alleged boycotters.
- Shortly after Jones returned to the United States, Cities Service abruptly terminated all negotiations with Waldron.
- Cities Service subsequently finalized its long-term contract to purchase Kuwaiti oil from Gulf.
- Later, when a Consortium of major oil companies was formed to manage Iranian oil, Cities Service was offered a small share, which it ultimately transferred to another company.
Procedural Posture:
- Gerald B. Waldron sued Cities Service Co. and six other oil companies in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking treble damages for antitrust violations.
- The District Court granted the defendants' motion to depose Waldron before they were required to file an answer, and stayed Waldron's own discovery.
- After Waldron's deposition, Cities Service moved for summary judgment. The court postponed the motion but granted Waldron only limited discovery against Cities Service under Rule 56(f).
- Following this discovery, Waldron filed an amended complaint, and Cities Service renewed its motion for summary judgment.
- The District Court again postponed the motion and allowed a second, limited round of discovery against Cities Service executives.
- After discovery concluded, Cities Service renewed its motion for summary judgment for a third time.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Cities Service, holding that Waldron had failed to produce specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the granting of summary judgment in a complex antitrust case violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 when the plaintiff, after extensive discovery, relies primarily on inferences of conspiracy from the defendant's refusal to deal, while the defendant provides substantial evidence of legitimate, non-conspiratorial business reasons for its actions?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Marshall
No, the granting of summary judgment was proper. Once a defendant moving for summary judgment presents evidence tending to show that its conduct was motivated by legitimate business reasons, the plaintiff must come forward with specific factual evidence of conspiracy to survive the motion. Waldron failed to meet this burden, as his case rested on the inference of conspiracy from Cities Service's refusal to deal, an inference which was less plausible than the non-conspiratorial explanation. Cities Service provided overwhelming evidence that its decision was based on a desire to avoid the legal and commercial retaliation threatened by Anglo-Iranian and the other major oil companies. The evidence also disproved Waldron's initial theory that Cities Service was 'bought off' with the Kuwait oil deal or its Consortium share. This case is distinguishable from Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting, as Waldron's evidence of conspiracy was not substantial, whereas Cities Service's evidence of independent business judgment was compelling.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
Yes, the granting of summary judgment was improper and violates the principles of Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting. Summary procedures should be used sparingly in complex antitrust litigation where motive and intent are central issues. The trial court unfairly restricted the plaintiff's discovery for years, preventing him from deposing the most crucial witness, Cities' president Jones, who died before he could be questioned. There was ample evidence from which a jury could infer conspiracy, including Cities' initial strong interest, its sudden and unexplained withdrawal from negotiations, and its secret dealings with one of the main boycotters. The majority improperly weighed the evidence and decided which inference was 'more probable,' a function that belongs exclusively to the jury at trial, not to a judge on a motion for summary judgment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarified the summary judgment standard in complex antitrust cases, tempering the Supreme Court's previous holding in Poller. The Court established that a plaintiff cannot get to a jury simply by alleging a conspiracy and pointing to ambiguous conduct like a parallel refusal to deal. Once the defendant proffers a plausible and well-documented legitimate business reason for its actions, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce specific, significant probative evidence of an illegal agreement. This holding makes it more difficult for antitrust plaintiffs to survive summary judgment based on circumstantial evidence and conjecture alone, requiring them to unearth concrete proof of conspiracy during discovery.
Unlock the full brief for First National Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co.