Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


March 30, 2004.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: LORETTA PRESKA, District Judge


Show business is a tough business.*fn1 After managing and operating plaintiff's theatres for nearly two decades defendants found themselves parties to a suit filed by plaintiff alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, tortious interference, and violations of the federal antitrust laws. Now, after almost seven years of litigation, after voluminous submissions, numerous motions, and depositions taken on the other side of the globe, I address defendants' motions for summary judgment. Page 2


  The plaintiff, Six West Retail Acquisition, Inc. ("Six West"), brings this action against various corporate and individual defendants alleging (1) breach of contracts related to the defendants' management of three movie theatres owned by Six West; (2) breach of fiduciary duties arising from defendants' management of those theatres; (3) tortious interference with the plaintiff's prospective business relations; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1; (6) attempted monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2; and (7) anticompetitive merger in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. (First Amended Complaint dated Dec. 4, 1997 ("Amended Compl.") ¶¶ 86-131). Following the close of discovery, plaintiff announced that it was abandoning the merger claim as it had "been compromised by subsequent events" (Letter from Jeffrey K. Howard to Judge Preska of 3/14/03, at 1 n.2), and I now address defendants' motions for summary judgment on the remaining allegations pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.*fn2 For the reasons set Page 3 forth below,*fn3 defendants' motions are granted.

 I. The Facts

  A. The Parties

  Plaintiff Six West is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York. (Amended Compl. ¶¶ 6, 34). Plaintiff leases out and controls three movie theatres in Manhattan: the New York Twin (the "Twin"), the Paris Theatre (the "Paris"), and the former Festival Theatre (the "Festival"). (Amended Compl. ¶¶ 4, 6). Sheldon H. Solow ("Solow") is a real estate developer who is Six West's owner, sole shareholder, and a corporate officer. (Amended Compl. ¶¶ 4, 6).

  Defendant Loews Theatre Management Corporation ("Loews Theatres"), formerly known as Sony Theatre Management Corporation, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York. (Amended Compl. ¶ 7). Defendant Loews Fine Arts Cinema, Inc. ("Loews Fine Arts") is a subsidiary of Loews Theatres through which Loews Theatres conducted business with the Paris and Festival theatres.*fn4 (Amended Compl. ¶ 10). Defendant Talent Booking Agency, Inc. ("TBA") is a New York corporation and Loews affiliate. (Amended Compl. ¶ 9). Loews Page 4 Theatres, TBA, and Loews Fine Arts refer to themselves collectively as the "Loews Defendants" and shall be referred to herein as the "Loews Defendants" or "Loews". (Loews Def.'s 56.1 Stmt at 3).

  Defendant Sony Pictures Entertainment Corporation ("Sony Pictures") is a Delaware corporation and the parent company of Loews Theatres. (Amended Compl. ¶ 11). Sony Pictures produces and distributes motion pictures, which are then (along with films from other companies) exhibited by Loews Theatres and other exhibitors. (Amended Compl. ¶ 11). Defendant Sony Corporation of America ("Sony USA") is a New York corporation, and is the parent company of Sony Pictures. (Amended Compl. ¶ 12). Defendant Sony Corporation is a Japanese corporation that is the ultimate parent of all the Sony entities. (Amended Compl. ¶ 13). Sony Pictures, Sony USA, and Sony Corporation refer to themselves collectively as the "Sony Defendants" and shall be referred to herein as the "Sony Defendants". (Loews Def.'s 56.1 Stmt at 1).

  Defendants James Loeks and Barrie Lawson Loeks are former Co-Chairpersons of Loews Theatres. (Amended Compl. ¶ 14-15). Defendant Travis Reid ("Reid") is President of Loews Theatres and TBA. (Amended Compl. ¶ 16). Defendant Seymour H. Smith ("Smith") is Executive Vice President of Loews Theatres and TBA. (Amended Compl. ¶ 18). Defendant Thomas Brueggeman Page 5 ("Brueggeman") is Vice President of Loews Theatres. (Amended Compl. ¶ 17). Hereinafter, James and Barrie Loeks, Reid, Smith, and Brueggeman shall collectively be referred to as the "Individual Defendants".

  B. The Twin

  On December 13, 1978, Solow Theatre Corporation ("STC"), which leased the Twin from Solow pursuant to a lease agreement (the "Lease Agreement") of the same date (Loews Def.'s 56.1 Stmt ¶ 4), and TBA entered into an agreement (the "Twin Agreement"), whereby TBA would operate and manage the Twin. (Twin Agreement § 3.01; Amended Compl. ¶ 33; Loews Def.'s 56.1 Stmt ¶ 2). Pursuant to the Twin Agreement, STC would receive 60% of the net theatre income, and TBA would receive 40%. (Twin Agreement § 4.04). STC and Solow, as tenant and landlord, respectively, entered into a Four Party Agreement dated December 13, 1978, with TBA and Loews, as operator and guarantor, respectively, whereby TBA and Loews agreed to assume the obligations of tenant, such as maintaining the premises, under the lease. (Pl's 56.1 Counterstmt to Loews ¶ 4b).*fn5 As part of Page 6 a transaction involving Chartwell Theatres, Inc., TBA and Solow entered into a letter agreement dated July 3, 1985, that amended the Twin Agreement (the "Chartwell Consent"). The Twin Agreement had a term of 15 years, from 1979 through 1993, and Loews exercised its right to extend the Twin Agreement, as amended by the Chartwell Consent, for another ten years. (Loews Def.'s 56.1 Stmt ¶¶ 19-20; Pl.'s 56.1 Counterstmt to Loews ¶ 20 (disputing when Loews exercised its right of renewal)).

  C. The Paris and Festival

  Solow began to operate the Paris theatre, which is allegedly one of the most prestigious theatres in the country and commonly used for movie premiers (Amended Compl. ¶¶ 43, 51), in 1990, and beginning on March 23, 1990, Loews and Solow Management Corporation began discussions regarding Loews' management of the Paris for Solow. (Loews Def.'s 56.1 Stmt ¶ 40). Solow and Loews continued discussions and exchanged draft operating agreements until 1993 or 1994 but never executed a written agreement that explicitly set forth the terms governing Loews' operation of the Paris. (Loews Def.'s 56.1 Stmt ¶ 41, Pl.'s 56.1 Counterstmt to Loews ¶ 41, 41a-g). Nevertheless, it is undisputed Loews did operate the Paris theatre even though the parties now dispute the terms that governed Loews' operation of that theatre. Loews ceased operating the Paris on April 30, 1997. (Loews Def.'s 56.1 Stmt ¶ 75). Page 7

  At the same time as Loews began operating the Paris, Loews also began operating the Festival. (Amended Compl. ¶ 47; Loews Def.'s 56.1 Stmt ¶ 79). As with the Paris, draft operating agreements were exchanged by the parties, but the parties never entered into a signed agreement. (Loews Def.'s Stmt ¶ 80; Pl.'s Counterstmt to Loews ¶ 80a-d). The Festival ceased operations on August 21, 1994. (Loews Def.'s 56.1 Stmt ¶ 92).

 II. Procedural History

  Six West filed the original complaint in this action on July 24, 1997, and the case was assigned to the Honorable David N. Edelstein. Following the public announcement of the merger between Loews and Cineplex Odeon, Six West filed the Amended Complaint on December 4, 1997, which added a Clayton Act claim alleging that the merger was anti-competitive (subsequently abandoned). All of the defendants filed a motion on January 8, 1998 to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). In an Opinion & Order dated March 9, 2000, Judge Edelstein denied most of defendants' motion to dismiss, but did dismiss the contract claims as against the Individual Defendants and held that the block-booking allegations could only proceed against Sony Pictures, as Sony Pictures is the only film distributor. See Six West Retail Acquisition, Inc. v. Sony Theatre Management Corp., 2000 WL 264295 (S.D.N.Y. March 9, 2000). Page 8

  I was assigned this case from Judge Edelstein on September 26, 2000, following Judge Edelstein's passing after almost fifty years of service on this Court.

  On April 16, 2003, the Loews Defendants, Sony Defendants, and Individual Defendants all moved for Summary Judgment on all remaining claims in the Amended Complaint. The defendants also submitted joint motions in limine to exclude the testimony and reports of two of plaintiff's experts. On April 16, 2003, plaintiff also filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony and report of one of defendants' experts. Submissions filed under seal from both parties followed.


 I. Summary Judgment Standard

  Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers, interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986).

  The moving party has the initial burden of "informing the district court of the basis for its motion" and identifying the matter that "it believes demonstrate[s] the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Page 9 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The substantive law determines the facts which are material to the outcome of a particular litigation. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250; Heyman v. Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co., 524 F.2d 1317, 1320 (2d Cir. 1975). In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, a court must resolve all ambiguities, and draw all reasonable inferences against the moving party. See Matsushita Elec. Industr. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)(citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962)).

  If the moving party meets its burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to come forward with "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). The non-moving party must "do more than simply show there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. However, only when it is apparent that no rational finder of fact "could find in favor of the non-moving parry because the evidence to support its case is so slight" should summary judgment be granted. Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., Ltd., 22 F.3d 1219, 1223 (2d Cir. 1994).

 II. Plaintiff's Antitrust Claims

  A. Sherman Antitrust Act § 1 Tying Claims

  Six West alleges, under two related but distinct theories, that the Sony Defendants' film distribution practices and the Loews Defendants' and Sony Defendants' licensing Page 10 relationships are unreasonable restraints of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. That provision makes illegal "[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations." 15 U.S.C. § 1. To establish such a claim plaintiff must show: "Ml) a combination or some form of concerted action between at least two legally distinct economic entities; and (2) such combination or conduct constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade either per se or under the rule of reason.'" Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. v. British Airways PLC, 257 F.3d 256, 263 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Tops Mkts., Inc. v. Quality Mkts, Inc., 142 F.3d 90, 95-96 (2d Cir. 1998)).

  1. Block-Booking

  a. Standing

  The Sony Defendants allege for the first time in their Reply that if there was any injury caused by the alleged block-booking by Sony Pictures the injury was only inflicted upon Loews and, thus, Six West lacks standing.*fn6 (Sony Def.'s Reply at 14). The Sony Defendants assert that as a landlord, Six West "was neither a consumer nor a competitor in the market in which trade was [allegedly] restrained" and, therefore, lacks standing to Page 11 complain about foreclosure from the bidding process. (Sony Def.'s Reply at 14 (quoting Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 539 (1983))). In support of this lack of standing defense, the Sony Defendants cite to Calderone Enter. Corp. v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 454 F.2d 1292, 1296 (2d Cir. 1971), in which a non-operating landlord of a theatre, which had been leased to an exhibitor, was held to lack antitrust standing.

  Calderone is easily distinguishable from the situation at bar. Here, Six West is much more than a mere landlord as Six West hired Loews to be its agent and perform the service of managing the three theatres and retained 60% of net profits. Pl.'s Suppl. Opp. to Sony at 1).*fn7 This is in contrast to the situation in Calderone in which the non-operating landlord charged an annual rental (in which it did receive a percentage of the theatre's gross receipts on top of a fixed minimal rent) and did not pay the exhibitor for the provision of services in managing the theatres. Id. at 1294. The Twin, Paris and Festival are owned by Six West, and, if Six West's allegations of block-booking are true, then as a competitor in the film exhibition market, Six West has been directly injured by such Page 12 anticompetitive behavior and has standing to pursue these claims.

  b. Substantive Block-Booking Allegations

  As Judge Edelstein described in his Opinion and Order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's Section 1 claims, block-booking is "the practice of licensing, or offering for license, one feature or group of features on condition that the exhibitor will also license another feature or group of features released by the distributors during a given period" and is a type of tying arrangement. See Six West, 2000 WL 264295, at *14 (quoting United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 156 (1948)). Such tying arrangements are per se illegal. See Paramount Pictures, 334 U.S. at 158-59 (1948). Judge Edelstein noted that "actual coercion `is an indispensable element' of a block-booking violation," id. (quoting Unijax, Inc. v. Champion Int'l, Inc., 683 F.2d 678, 685 (2d Cir. 1982)), and Unijax, 683 F.2d at 685, makes clear that "[a]ctual coercion by the seller that in fact forces the buyer to purchase the tied product" is required. Thus, "unless the buyer can prove that it was the unwilling purchaser of the allegedly tied products, actual coercion has not been established and a tying agreement cannot be found." Trans Sport, Inc. v. Starter Sportswear, Inc., 364 F.2d 186, 192 (2d Cir. 1992) (emphasis added). At most, the facts to which Six West cites suggest that there were voluntary relationships between the Loews Defendants and film distributors, Page 13 which are not per se illegal but rather ought to be evaluated under the rule of reason.

  Though allowing both the block-booking and relationship licensing claims to go forward, Judge Edelstein warned Six West that it must delineate the Section 1 claims more cogently as the case proceeded. See Six West, 2000 WL 264295, at *20. Yet, Six West has continued to conflate the evidence relevant to the block-booking and relationship licensing allegations. A good deal of the evidence Six West cites to support the block-booking claim against Sony Pictures does not implicate Sony Pictures but rather touches on the relationships that Loews Theatres had with distributors other than Sony Pictures. From these descriptions of Loews' relationships, which very often do not even hint at coercion by any distributor — let alone name Sony Pictures specifically — Six West attempts to maintain a block-booking claim against Sony Pictures. Six West points out that at the summary judgment stage a court:
should not view each piece of evidence in a vacuum. Seemingly innocent or ambiguous behavior can give rise to a reasonable inference of conspiracy in light of the background against which the behavior takes place. Evidence can take on added meaning when viewed in the context with all the circumstances surrounding the dispute.
(Pl.'s Opp. to Sony at 23 (quoting Apex Oil Co. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.