The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bauer, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause comes on defendants' motion to dismiss the
This is an Antitrust action instituted under Sections 1 and
2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1 & 2) and Section 16 of the
Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 26). The plaintiff is the State of
Illinois, its departments, divisions, agencies, counties,
municipalities, townships, and political subdivisions organized
under the authority of the State, which have in the past and
will continue in the future in the course of their operations,
either for themselves, the public institutions and agencies, or
otherwise, to purchase or otherwise pay for "Fluid Milk
Product"*fn1 and other processed milk products within the area
of the relevant market.*fn2
The plaintiff State, by its Attorney General, also brings
this suit as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff's claim is allegedly
typical of those to be asserted for the class, consisting of
all counties, municipalities, townships, and political
subdivisions including the various school districts and other
institutions within the state supported by public funds, which
have in the past and will continue in the future to purchase
and pay for Fluid Milk Product and other processed milk
products, within the area of the relevant market (Chicago
Regional Marketing Area).
The Complaint in essence charges that, by reason of the
marketing programs of the cooperatives, the sale of milk in
the Chicago Federal milk marketing area has been monopolized.
Plaintiff requests only injunctive relief, including the
dissolution of the agricultural cooperative defendants.
The defendants in support of their motion to dismiss the
1. The statutory grant of authority to the
Illinois Attorney General makes it clear that
he has no authority to maintain this antitrust
injunction suit in Federal Court.
2. The 1969 Amendments to the Illinois Antitrust
Act were intended to limit the authority of the
Illinois Attorney General, preventing him from
maintaining injunctive actions in Federal
3. The State is not the proper representative in
Antitrust actions of the political subdivisions
organized under the authority of the State.
This Court is not persuaded by the defendants' arguments and
is of the opinion that the State of Illinois, as represented
by its Attorney General is authorized to maintain in Federal
Court this Antitrust suit seeking injunctive relief.
I. The State of Illinois May Maintain This Federal
Since a threat of injury to the State in its proprietary
capacity as a result of Antitrust violations by the defendants
is alleged, the State of Illinois is the real party in
interest.*fn3 It is well settled that a State may maintain an
action in Federal Court for injunctive relief to remedy an
Antitrust violation which is injurious to the State's
proprietary interest. Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co.,
324 U.S. 439, 65 S.Ct. 716, 89 L.Ed. 1051 (1945). The Supreme Court of
the United States has recently approved class action suits
brought by a State as the real party in interest (as Illinois
has brought the instant action) as definitely preferable in
the Antitrust area to parens patriae actions. Hawaii v.
Standard Oil Company of California, 405 U.S. 251, 266, 92 ...