Threatened Injury from Proposed Merger Does Not Provide Antitrust Standing for Injunction-Seeking Non-Market Participant

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment that plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing to pursue this unlawful merger case. “Plaintiffs [assert] that because they seek only injunctive relief, they have standing even as an indirect purchaser. Plaintiffs cite dicta from Lucas Automotive Engineering, Inc. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 140 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1998), in which the court stated, ‘To maintain an antitrust divestiture suit, a private plaintiff must generally meet all the requirements that apply to the damages plaintiff, except that the injury itself need only be threatened, and occasionally a party too remote for damages might be granted an injunction.’ Plaintiffs have not cited any decision issued since Lucas Automotive that applied this hypothetical exception to grant injunctive relief. I conclude that Plaintiffs cannot show a threatened antitrust injury caused by the proposed merger both because they do not participate in the Westport market and because they do not sell to either [defendant].”

Boardman et al v. Pacific Seafood Group et al, 1-15-cv-00108 (ORD 2018-05-15, Order) (Michael J. McShane)

2018-05-17T12:16:02+00:00 May 17th, 2018|Antitrust, Docket Report|