Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC v. Village Supermarkets, Inc.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19694
3rd Cir.2015Background
- Hanover Realty signed a development deal with Wegmans to build a full-service supermarket in Hanover, NJ, with Hanover bearing permitting risk if not achieved within two years.
- ShopRite (Village Supermarkets) and its affiliate H & H Development opposed Wegmans’ permits through a campaign of administrative and state-court challenges.
- The District Court dismissed Hanover’s antitrust claims for lack of standing, labeling Hanover neither a competitor nor a consumer in the restrained markets.
- The Third Circuit held Hanover may have antitrust injury in the market for full-service supermarkets (inextricably intertwined with Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct) but lacked standing in the market for rental space.
- The court also held that Hanover’s petitioning activity may fall outside Noerr-Pennington immunity, as the suit seeks relief for sham litigation, and remanded for further proceedings.
- Judge Ambro dissented in part, agreeing on standing for the full-service supermarket market but urging a broader Noerr-Pennington approach and advocating issue-voting; Greenberg dissented on Noerr-Pennington applicability, concurring with Ambro on standing but disagreeing on sham-litigation expansion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Antitrust standing (full-service supermarket market) | Hanover has antitrust injury—its harms are inseparable from Defendants’ scheme. | Hanover is not a consumer or competitor in the market. | Hanover has antitrust standing for the full-service supermarket market. |
| Antitrust standing (shopping center rental market) | Hanover and H & H Development compete for rental space. | They do not meaningfully compete; no cross-elasticity. | No standing for the rental-space market; Count Two dismissed. |
| Noerr-Pennington immunity and sham-litigation exception | Defendants’ petitioning is a sham to restrain trade; exception applies. | Petitions are immunized unless sham under PRE; multiple petitions may show sham pattern. | Sham-litigation exception applies; Noerr-Pennington immunity not a bar at this stage. |
| Dangerous probability of monopoly power | Insufficient market definition or likelihood of monopolization. | Court scrutinizes product and geographic markets; standing resolved affects monopolization analysis. | |
| Specific intent to monopolize | Not central after standing and Noerr-Pennington determinations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blue Shield of Va. v. McCready, 457 U.S. 465 (U.S. 1982) (antitrust injury can extend beyond direct market participants; injury intertwined with broader harms)
- Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1983) (antitrust standing framework; broad remedial purpose)
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1977) (definition of antitrust injury; consumer protection aim)
- Ethypharm S.A. France v. Abbott Laboratories, 707 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2013) (injury not necessarily limited to direct market participants; cross-market considerations)
- Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 501 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2007) (antitrust injury not automatically conferred by upstream/downstream effects)
- Cal. Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (U.S. 1972) (Noerr-Pennington sham petitioning standard; pattern of petitions analysis)
- Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (U.S. 1993) (two-step sham litigation test for single petitioning actions)
- USS-POSCO Indus. v. Contra Costa Cnty. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, AFL-CIO, 31 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 1994) (pattern-of-petitioning approach to sham litigation analysis)
- Waugh Chapel S., LLC v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 27, 728 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 2013) (holistic pattern analysis for sham petitioning)
- Southaven Land Co. v. Malone & Hyde, Inc., 715 F.2d 1079 (6th Cir. 1983) (landlord standing limitations in antitrust context)
- Serfecz v. Jewel Food Stores, 67 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 1995) (standing for market-related injury in shopping-center context)