Richard Dominguez v. Ual Corporation
399 U.S. App. D.C. 92
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- United's No Transfer Policy is central to its pricing strategy, preventing resale of discounted tickets.
- Dominguez bought a three-flight package in 2006 and challenges the policy as applied to DC–SF Bay area travel.
- Plaintiff asserts Sherman Act §§ 1, 2 and unjust enrichment are violated due to foreclosed secondary market.
- District Court granted summary judgment on merits without addressing standing.
- Court holds lack of Article III standing requires dismissal; remands for lack of jurisdiction.
- Market for purposes of summary judgment is non-stop travel between DC/metropolitan area and San Francisco Bay area; only Oakland leg relevant to Dominguez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Dominguez's claims have standing? | Dominguez lacks standing only if injury is speculative. | No standing because no concrete injury shown. | Dominguez lacks standing; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Is the alleged injury sufficiently concrete or merely speculative? | Survey shows potential secondary-market injury from No Transfer Policy. | Surveys/speculation do not prove concrete injury in fact. | Injury is speculative; no reasonable juror could find overcharge. |
| Can a secondary market model prove injury when such market did not exist or is unproven? | Secondary market would lower prices; potential injury shown. | No proven lower prices due to fees/costs; model unreliable. | Model fails to establish injury; not enough to show standing. |
| Does Bigelow apply to standing analysis in antitrust cases? | Bigelow allows inference of injury when wrong precludes precise proof. | Bigelow relates to damages, not to injury-in-fact; not applicable. | Bigelow does not establish standing; damages rule not injury rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) (standing as essential part of case-or-controversy)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (jurisdiction absent; court must dismiss)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (standing limits defined; cannot decide without jurisdiction)
- Foundation on Economic Trends v. Lyng, 943 F.2d 79 (1991) (courts decide standing even if issue not decided below)
- FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990) (standing cannot be bypassed; need proper jurisdiction)
- Transmission Agency of North Cal. v. FERC, 495 F.3d 663 (2007) (standing must be addressed; injury must be concrete)
- Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, 327 U.S. 251 (1946) (distinguishes injury proof from damages; not a standing case)