Associated General Contractors v. California State Council of Carpenters

PETITIONER: Associated General Contractors
RESPONDENT: California State Council of Carpenters
LOCATION: PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.

DOCKET NO.: 81-334
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1981-1986)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

CITATION: 459 US 519 (1983)
ARGUED: Oct 05, 1982
DECIDED: Feb 22, 1983

ADVOCATES:
James P. Watson - on behalf of the Petitioner
Victor J. Van Bourg - on behalf of the Respondent

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Associated General Contractors v. California State Council of Carpenters

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 05, 1982 in Associated General Contractors v. California State Council of Carpenters

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - February 22, 1983 in Associated General Contractors v. California State Council of Carpenters

John Paul Stevens:

The second case that I have to announce is Associated General Contractors of California against California State Council of Carpenters and others.

The case arises out of a dispute between parties to a multiemployer collective bargaining agreement.

The plaintiff unions alleged that in violation of the antitrust laws, the mutliemployer association and its members coerced certain third parties as well as some of the association's members to enter into a business relationship with nonunion firms.

This coercion according to the complaint adversely affected the trade of certain unionized firms and thereby in turn, restrained the business activities of the unions.

The unions filed suit in United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that they have been injured by conduct in violation of the federal antitrust laws.

The District Court dismissed the complaint and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed.

We granted certiorari to decide whether the Union's compliant sufficiently alleged that they were parties who have been injured in their business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antirust laws and may therefore recovered treble damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act.

For reasons stated at length in an opinion filed with the clerk today, we conclude that the Union's action may not be maintained under this statute.

We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Justice Marshall has filed a dissenting opinion.

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you, Justice Stevens.