Rubloff Development Group, Inc. v. Supervalu, Inc.
863 F. Supp. 2d 732
N.D. Ill.2012Background
- Rubloff Development Group and Rubloff Mundelein sue for federal and state antitrust, RICO, tortious interference, fraud, abuse of process, and conspiracy relating to stalled suburban Chicago grocery-anchored developments.
- Saint Consulting Group is a defendant-counterclaimant alleging inducement of fiduciary breach, conversion, replevin, tortious interference, and misappropriation of trade secrets.
- Mundelein and New Lenox developments faced permit and timetable obstacles, with landowner lawsuits delaying approvals and causing substantial costs and lost profits.
- Greg Olson, real name Leigh Mayo, allegedly acted as Saint’s agent provocateur to organize local opposition and used pseudonyms to conceal Saint’s involvement.
- Saint allegedly provided confidential documents and engaged in misrepresentations to litigants and officials to delay projects; some responses involved re-written expert reports and backchannel judge communications.
- The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, with Rubloff’s cross-claims dismissed in part and in part denied, and most counts dismissed without prejudice or with prejudice as noted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Antitrust standing and injury | MeViEkers have standing in the shopping-center market but not in the grocery-store market | No antitrust injury to the shopping-center market; injury too remote | Plaitiffs lack antitrust injury and standing for the alleged grocery-market conspiracy |
| Noerr-Pennington immunity applicability | Noerr-Pennington does not bar claims for misrepresentations and sham litigation | Immunity covers petitioning actions; some conduct not actionable | Noerr-Pennington immunity applies to petitioning actions; sham-litigation and non-petitioning conduct largely barred or dismissed; some claims dismissed without prejudice |
| RICO standing and component elements | Plaintiffs allege predicate acts of fraud and patterns; damages speculative | RICO standing requires proximate causation; damages are not proven and speculative | No RICO standing; dismisses RICO counts; conspiracy claims dismissed without prejudice |
| Tortious interference with prospective economic advantage | Defendants’ conduct interfered with business expectancy | No viable tortious-interference claim given Noerr-Pennington immunity and lack of causation | Counts dismissed without prejudice; remaining non-petitioning activity insufficient to sustain claim |
| Conversion and misappropriation of trade secrets (cross-claims) | Saint’s documents and information have value and were misappropriated | Docs lack trade-secret value; no fiduciary duty; assertion limited by privilege rulings | Conversion claim allowed for the paper documents; misappropriation claim dismissed with prejudice to trade secrets |
Key Cases Cited
- Serfecz v. Jewel Food Stores, 67 F.3d 591 (7th Cir.1995) (antitrust standing framework; injury proximity considerations)
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477 (Supreme Court 1977) (antitrust injury and proximate cause requirements)
- Mercatus Group, LLC v. Lake Forest Hosp., 641 F.3d 834 (7th Cir.2011) (Noerr-Pennington immunity and petitioning context)
- Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 508 U.S. 49 (Supreme Court 1993) (sham litigation exception to Noerr-Pennington; objective merit standard)
- New West, L.P. v. City of Joliet, 491 F.3d 717 (7th Cir.2007) (settlement impact on sham litigation analysis)