Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
SCHWARTZ v. COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INS. CO.
November 8, 1974
HARLAN SCHWARTZ and DANIEL T. DANZI, JR. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY and PHILADELPHIA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY and INDUSTRIAL VALLEY TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY and PRESIDENTIAL INC. and BROKERS TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY and TITLE ABSTRACT COMPANY and LAWYERS'S TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION and TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PENNSYLVANIA and CHELSEA TITLE & GUARANTEE COMPANY and CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY and CITY TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY and THE GUARDIAN and INDUSTRIAL VALLEY ABSTRACT COMPANY OF DELAWARE COUNTY and PIONEER NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE and PENN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY and CHELSEA TITLE & ABSTRACT COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC. and PENNSYLVANIA RATING BUREAU
The opinion of the court was delivered by: BECKER
This case is founded upon plaintiffs' claim that the imposition by the defendant title insurance companies of a so-called seller charge constituted a conspiracy to fix prices in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.
Accordingly, while the motion for summary judgment is likely to be granted, we will defer entering an order thereon for 45 days, which will afford the parties 30 days to submit additional materials pertinent to the rule 56 motion, and 15 days thereafter to file supplemental briefs. If the plaintiffs advise the court that they have nothing additional to submit, or if their submission does not persuade us to reverse our provisional ruling, we will grant summary judgment in favor of all defendants at that time.
We have reviewed the materials which the parties have added to the record. The supplemental materials consist in part of the matters referred to at 374 F. Supp. 570-71 nn. 6-10 upon which we were reluctant to ground our decision at that time because those matters were dehors the record and we had not previously announced to counsel our intention to judicially notice them or to treat the motion as one for summary judgment. See discussion at 374 F. Supp. 578-79. These materials bolster our earlier conclusion that the seller charge is subject to regulation. The remaining supplement to the record is in the nature of answers of the defendants to plaintiffs' interrogatories, in which the defendants have supplied revenue figures which indicate that the revenues derived from the seller charge constitute a not insubstantial portion of the defendants' total revenues during the time period the seller charge was in effect. The answers to interrogatories do not alter our earlier conclusion.
AND NOW, this 8th day of November 1974, IT IS ORDERED that summary judgment is granted for the defendants.
Buy This Entire Record For