Ford Motor Co. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Nov 29, 1973 No. Civ. 42320Published

Before: Cobey

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff's state law claim was barred by res judicata because it arose from the same primary right as a previously adjudicated federal claim, and the plaintiff had improperly split its cause of action by failing to join the state claim in the federal proceeding.

Issues

Whether a final federal court judgment on a Sherman Act claim is res judicata regarding a subsequent state court action based on the Cartwright Act involving the same parties and facts.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The two actions therefore rested on but a single invasion of one primary right, and therefore constituted a single cause of action.”

“As its federal claim was substantial and Cartrade could and should have sued for both federal and state relief in its earlier federal action, its failure to do so constituted splitting of its one cause of action.”

“As the rule against splitting is, in part, an application of the doctrine of res judicata, the state action is barred.”

[678]

Opinion

COBEY, J.

Petitioner, Ford Motor Company (hereafter Ford), seeks a writ of mandate directed to respondent Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, compelling the court to annul its earlier order denying Ford’s motion for a summary judgment against Cartrade, Inc. (hereafter Cartrade), and to enter instead an order granting it.

The sole issue is whether a final judgment in Ford’s favor, and against Cartrade, in an earlier action in federal court is res judicata, and, therefore, Ford’s motion for summary judgment against Cartrade in the instant action should have been granted.

Facts

On March 17, 1966, in an action commenced by Cartrade against Ford and the Ford Dealers Advertising Association of Southern California (hereafter F.D.A.A.) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division, Cartrade alleged that an illegal conspiracy existed between the codefendants in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. (15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2.) Both defendants obtained a directed verdict. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment, holding, among other things, that Cartrade failed to prove that the defendants had “as a primary purpose, putting Cartrade out of business or compelling it to conform to any anticompetitive practices.” (Cartrade,

Inc.

Ford Dealers Adv. Ass’n of So. Cal.

(9th Cir. 1971) 446 F.2d 289, 293.) The United States Supreme Court denied Cartrade’s petition for writ of certiorari. (405 U.S. 997 [31 L.Ed.2d 465, 92 S.Ct. 1249].)

On April 14, 1969, Cartrade filed a complaint in respondent state court against the same parties. It alleged the same conspiratorial •acts which had been pled in the federal action, but alleged them to be in violation of Business and Professions Code sections 16720 and 16726 of the Cartwright Act. Respondent court denied a defense motion for summary judgment against Cartrade made on the theory of res judicata.

Ford Motor Co. v. Superior Court

AI Brief

COBEY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief