08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain
08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain 08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain
until after the filing of the plaintiff’s averments in Medical Supply I. The Supreme Court case of Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp., 349 U.S. 322, 75 S.Ct. 865, 99 L.Ed. 1122 (1955), is controlling. In Lawlor, the plaintiffs brought an antitrust action in 1942 alleging that the defendants, National Screen and three producers, had conspired to establish a monopoly in the distribution of advertising posters to motion picture exhibitors through the use of exclusive licenses, and that the plaintiffs' business had been injured as a result. In 1943, prior to trial, that suit was settled and dismissed with prejudice. Id. at 324, 75 S.Ct. at 866. The settlement was based upon an agreement by National Screen to furnish plaintiffs with all standard accessories distributed by National Screen pursuant to its exclusive license agreements. In 1949, the plaintiffs brought another antitrust action, this time alleging that the prior settlement was merely a device used by the defendants to perpetuate their conspiracy and monopoly. Plaintiffs also alleged that five other producers had joined the conspiracy since the 1943 dismissal, that defendant National Screen had deliberately made slow and erratic deliveries of advertising materials in an effort to destroy plaintiffs' business, and that defendant had used 3 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5923
tie-in sales and other means of exploiting its monopoly power. Id. at 325, 75 S.Ct. at 867. The Supreme Court held that the latter suit was not barred by res judicata because the two suits were not based on the same cause of action. Id. at 327, 75 S.Ct. at 868. The Court noted: “That both suits involved "essentially the same course of wrongful conduct" is not decisive. Such a course of conduct--for example, an abatable nuisance--may frequently give rise to more than a single cause of action.... While the 1943 judgment precludes recovery on claims arising prior to its entry, it cannot be given the effect of extinguishing claims which did not even then exist and which could not possibly have been sued upon in the previous case.” Id. at 327-28, 75 S.Ct. at 868 (footnote omitted). See also Cellar Door Productions, Inc. of Michigan v. Kay, 897 F.2d 1375 at 1376-77 (C.A.6 (Mich.), 1990). The Seventh Circuit has also followed Lawlor insofar as it held that "[i]n the context of a continuing scheme to violate the antitrust laws, a cause of action accrues to the plaintiff each time the defendant engages in antitrust conduct that harms the plaintiff." Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Sealy, Inc., 669 F.2d 490, 494 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 943, 103 S.Ct. 257, 74 L.Ed.2d 201 (1982). The Fifth Circuit explored Lawlor’s application in Exhibitors Poster Exchange, Inc. v. National Screen Service Corp., 421 F.2d 1313 (5th Cir.1970). 4 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5924
- Page 297 and 298: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 299 and 300: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 301 and 302: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 303 and 304: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 305 and 306: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 307 and 308: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 309 and 310: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 311 and 312: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 313 and 314: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 315 and 316: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 317 and 318: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 319 and 320: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 321 and 322: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 323 and 324: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 325 and 326: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 327 and 328: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 329 and 330: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 331 and 332: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 333 and 334: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 335 and 336: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
- Page 337 and 338: Dated this 24th day of October, 200
- Page 339 and 340: lack of health insurance and the co
- Page 341 and 342: Washington, DC 20004-1206 John K. P
- Page 343 and 344: United States Court of Appeals for
- Page 345 and 346: “Defendant's second allegation is
- Page 347: 3. The defendants were not parties
- Page 351 and 352: judicata grounds. The court noted,
- Page 353 and 354: Id pg. 328. d. Identity of claims U
- Page 355 and 356: Heard v. Board of Pub. Util. of Kan
- Page 357 and 358: The hospital supply competitors VHA
- Page 359 and 360: 56 states: “By 8/21/04 The NY Tim
- Page 361 and 362: 506 (2002); Crawford-El v. Britton,
- Page 363 and 364: The burden to state a claim for int
- Page 365 and 366: 502 states: “Defendants through t
- Page 367 and 368: the conspiracy, agreed to commit pr
- Page 369 and 370: enterprise." Mason Tenders District
- Page 371 and 372: “Section 315 of the Patriot Act a
- Page 373 and 374: saml@medicalsupplychain.com Pro se
- Page 375 and 376: !"#$%&"'()&$*'+,$&-(%'()!('()&.'/01
- Page 377 and 378: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILE
- Page 379 and 380: in ensuring that the claims he brin
- Page 381 and 382: supplies which included the threat
- Page 383 and 384: Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law
- Page 385 and 386: Certificate of Service I certify I
- Page 387 and 388: ! "#!$%&!'()&*+,-(&)#!).!%&*&/0!1&*
- Page 389 and 390: ###################################
- Page 391 and 392: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 393 and 394: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 395 and 396: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
- Page 397 and 398: 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Ne
until after the filing of the plaintiff’s averments in<br />
<strong>Medical</strong> <strong>Supply</strong> I.<br />
The Supreme Court case of Lawlor v. National Screen<br />
Service Corp., 349 U.S. 322, 75 S.Ct. 865, 99 L.Ed. 1122<br />
(1955), is controlling. In Lawlor, the plaintiffs brought<br />
an antitrust action in 1942 alleging that the defendants,<br />
National Screen and three producers, had conspired to<br />
establish a monopoly in the distribution of advertising<br />
posters to motion picture exhibitors through the use of<br />
exclusive licenses, and that the plaintiffs' business had<br />
been injured as a result. In 1943, prior to trial, that<br />
suit was settled and dismissed with prejudice. Id. at 324,<br />
75 S.Ct. at 866. The settlement was based upon an agreement<br />
by National Screen to furnish plaintiffs with all standard<br />
accessories distributed by National Screen pursuant to its<br />
exclusive license agreements. In 1949, the plaintiffs<br />
brought another antitrust action, this time alleging that<br />
the prior settlement was merely a device used by the<br />
defendants to perpetuate their conspiracy and monopoly.<br />
Plaintiffs also alleged that five other producers had<br />
joined the conspiracy since the 1943 dismissal, that<br />
defendant National Screen had deliberately made slow and<br />
erratic deliveries of advertising materials in an effort to<br />
destroy plaintiffs' business, and that defendant had used<br />
3<br />
<strong>08</strong>-<strong>3187</strong> <strong>Medical</strong> <strong>Supply</strong> <strong>Chain</strong> vs. Neoforma <strong>Volume</strong> XV 5923