Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D.N.J.: Indirect victim of antitrust acts could not state monopoly claims, (Oct 6, 2014)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

Monopoly claims filed by developer Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC against Village Supermarkets, Inc. were dismissed for failure to state an antitrust injury by the federal district court in Newark, New Jersey (Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC v. Village Supermarkets, Inc., October 2, 2014, Chesler, S.).

Hanover 3201 Realty had a lease and site development agreement for a property it owned with a supermarket company. Village Supermarkets worked to prevent the development of the supermarket. Hanover filed claims for monopolization, attempted monopolization, conspiracy to monopolize in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and five claims under state law.

Antitrust injuries are limited to consumers and competitors in the restrained market, and to those whose injuries are the means by which the defendants seek to achieve their anticompetitive ends, the court explained. There is a limited exception where the injury is inextricably linked to the defendant’s wrongdoing.

Hanover was unable to show it suffered an antitrust injury, according to the court. Village Supermarkets argued that Hanover was unable to show an antitrust injury because the parties were not direct competitors and because Hanover is not a consumer. Hanover contended that it suffered an antitrust injury in two different markets, “the full-service supermarket market, and the full-service supermarket shopping center market.” First, there was no evidence to support Hanover’s allegations that it competed directly with Village Supermarkets in the shopping center landlord market. Hanover did not do business as a grocer and Village Supermarkets did not do business as a landlord. Second, as to the supermarket shopping center market, Hanover argued that it had standing to assert antitrust claims because it was the intended target of Village Supermarkets’ anti-competitive activities. However, there was no evidence Village Supermarkets targeted Hanover. Hanover was merely an indirect victim of Village Supermarkets’ acts against another supermarket company.

The conspiracy claims were also dismissed for failure to provide more than vague and conclusory statements, according to the court.

The case is No. 14-1327 (SRC).

Attorneys: James E. Cecchi (Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, PC) for Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC. Anthony Argiropoulos (Sills, Cummis & Gross, PC), and David W. Fassett (Arseneault, Whipple, Fassett & Azzarello, LLP) for Village Supermarkets, Inc.

Companies: Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC; Village Supermarkets, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust NewJerseyNews