Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D.N.J.: Vendor coupon redemption business lacked standing in suit against coupon issuers, (Apr 12, 2016)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

In an action by a vendor coupon redemption clearinghouse business against a commerce platform and manufacturers that issued vendor coupons for their products for allegedly engaging in restraint of trade, the purported business operator failed to properly identify the plaintiffs bringing suit or the basis of the relief sought against the defendants, the federal district court in Newark, New Jersey, has ruled. Thus, the business operator’s complaint was dismissed (Martucci v. Procter & Gamble, Inc., April 11, 2016, Linares, J.).

William C. Martucci purported to have operated a vendor coupon redemption clearinghouse business. In June 2015, Martucci filed suit on behalf of himself and White Corporation, against commerce platform operator, Inmar, Inc., consumer goods company Procter & Gamble, and five manufacturers that issued coupons for the products—Reckitt Benckiser, Phillip Morris USA, Inc., Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Bausch & Lomb, and Abbot Labs, Inc. The complaint alleged that Inmar had previously approved the plaintiffs to be a clearinghouse for vendor coupon redemptions and then failed to honor its contracts with plaintiffs, causing the plaintiffs to lose most of their coupon business. Martucci asserted, in part, claims for restraint of trade and violations of the Sherman Act. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

The court found that Martucci lacked standing to bring the instant lawsuit since he failed to show any personal injury caused by the defendants. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a complaint must set forth a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” the court explained. In this case, Martucci did not explain why he filed the action on behalf of White Corporation or identify any relationship he had with the company. Thus, it was unclear who the plaintiffs were in the complaint.

Furthermore, Martucci failed to plead any allegations of wrongdoing against any of the manufacturer defendants. His allegations that Inmar acted alone or in concert with the manufacturers to set a fee for shipping and postage, and that Inmar clients acted in concert not to increase the coupon handling fee were insufficient to establish a violation of the Sherman Act, the court noted.

Finally, Martucci failed to request any relief from the defendants that was specifically tied to any of the claims in his complaint. His allegations that the defendants owed him certain sums of money were not supported by factual assertions of what the defendants’ alleged financial obligations were, the court concluded.

The case is No. 2:15-cv-04434-JLL-JAD.

Attorneys: William C. Martucci, pro se. David S. Osterman (Goldberg Segalla LLP) for Procter & Gamble, Inc. Stephen Allen Loney, Jr. (Hogan Lovells) for Inmar, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust NewJerseyNews