Marta Cooperative of America v. Toshiba Corp.
16-16982
| 9th Cir. | Dec 26, 2017Background
- MARTA Cooperative of America (MARTA) is a purchasing cooperative that negotiates prices and terms with CRT vendors, pays vendors, and resells CRTs to its members.
- Members submit purchase orders but vendors only ship with MARTA approval; MARTA owns the CRTs until members pay and bears the payment and loss risk if members don’t pay.
- MARTA sued Toshiba as a direct purchaser in MDL CRT price‑fixing litigation alleging defendants conspired to fix CRT prices.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Toshiba, ruling MARTA lacked standing under the direct purchaser rule and the AGC antitrust‑standing factors.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed standing de novo, concluding material factual disputes exist about whether MARTA acted as an agent or as a distinct direct purchaser and whether it satisfies AGC factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the direct purchaser rule bars MARTA's claim | MARTA claims it was a direct purchaser that paid vendors and bore ownership/risk, so it has direct‑purchaser standing | Toshiba contends MARTA acted as an agent for members, making members the direct purchasers | Reversed: factual disputes exist whether MARTA is a seller (direct purchaser) or an agent — summary judgment improper |
| Whether MARTA is a distinct economic entity for standing | MARTA argues it performed core distribution functions (negotiation, payment, ownership, pricing), making it economically distinct | Toshiba argues MARTA’s ancillary roles and member ordering show MARTA lacked independent economic identity | Reversed: material facts conflict; a juror could find MARTA distinct — summary judgment improper |
| Whether passage‑through of overcharges defeats standing | MARTA asserts direct‑purchaser status controls; passing on overcharges does not defeat standing | Toshiba and district court relied on speculative pass‑through harm to deny standing | Reversed: district court improperly inserted pass‑through defense into standing; direct purchaser rule governs injury timing |
| Application of AGC factors for antitrust standing | MARTA contends it participated in the market and competed with manufacturers/distributors, supporting standing | Toshiba argues MARTA’s alleged injury is indirect and speculative under AGC analysis | Reversed: material factual disputes under AGC factors preclude summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (standing is a question of law reviewed de novo) (holding standing inquiry)
- Associated Gen. Contractors v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (establishing factors for antitrust standing analysis)
- Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 392 U.S. 481 (direct purchaser harmed when it pays an illegal overcharge)