Out A Sight Pet v. Radio Sys Corp , 197 F. App'x 151 ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-3-2006
Out A Sight Pet v. Radio Sys Corp
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3609
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Out A Sight Pet v. Radio Sys Corp" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 620.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/620
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-3609
OUT-A-SIGHT PET CONTAINMENT, INC.,
Appellant
v.
RADIO SYSTEMS CORPORATION, RADIO FENCE
DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; LORI VOLWILER
____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civ. No. 01-cv-05775)
District Judge: Honorable Louis H. Pollak
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
July 13, 2006
Before: SMITH, WEIS and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed August 3, 2006)
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
Defendant Radio Systems Corporation produces and sells components for
electronic pet fences. Plaintiff Out-A-Sight Pet Containment, Inc. contracted to buy
components from defendant. The dispute between the parties is a straightforward one:
1
did defendant agree to supply all of its various components as plaintiff contends, or only
those listed in an appendix to the sales agreement?
After scrutinizing the supply agreement, the district judge decided that it
was ambiguous and submitted the issue to a jury. During the trial, evidence established
that plaintiff had been particularly interested in purchasing a component labeled as “UL-
275D,” which had not been included in the appendix. Interrogatory number one, which
was submitted to the jury, asked whether defendant was required to supply UL-275D to
plaintiff. The jury responded that plaintiff was not required to supply that item.
Interrogatory two asked the jury if plaintiff had proved that defendant was required to
allow plaintiff to buy all of the components, rather than only those listed in the appendix
to the written agreement. Again, the jury responded in the negative.
After deliberations began, the jury sent a note to the district judge as
follows: “Can we the jury interpret question two to mean all products with the exception
of the UL-275D?” After a discussion with counsel, the judge answered, “No” to the
inquiry. The jury subsequently responded that plaintiff had not proved that the agreement
required defendant to allow plaintiff to buy all of the defendant’s products.
On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the judge’s answer was erroneous.
We are not persuaded.
We review a district court's formulation of a jury interrogatory for abuse of
discretion. Armstrong v. Burdette Tomlin Memorial Hosp. 438 F.3d 240, 246 (3d Cir.
2006) (citing Armstrong v. Dwyer, 155 F.3d 211, 214 (3d Cir.1998)). The only
2
requirement “is that the questions asked of the jury be adequate to determine the factual
issues essential to the judgment.” Id. (quoting Dwyer, 155 F.3d at 216).
Interrogatory number one directly addressed the issue raised by the jury and
it was neither necessary nor desirable to provide further instructions.
Plaintiff further asserts error in the dismissal of the Sherman Act § 1 claim,
15 U.S.C. § 1, based on alleged pressure by competitive distributors to terminate the
plaintiff’s supply contract. At the close of the evidence, the district judge dismissed that
count because of insufficient evidence on the definition of the relevant market, and failure
to demonstrate the required impact on competition. We find no error in the District
Court’s ruling.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
3