Appellate Law

CA1: lessees lack standing to sue manufacturers

By S. COTUS

In Re: New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation, No. 07-1990 (6/30/08) affirms the dismissal of suit under Section 4 of the Clayton Act brought by lessees of new cars, who argued that the defendants ?conspired to restrict the flow of cheaper Canadian cars into the U.S. market...resulting in artificially high rental payments under plaintiffs' lease agreements in the United States.?  Applying Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), and Kansas v. UtiliCorp United, Inc., 497 U.S. 199 (1990) the First says that they are indirect purchasers, because in car leasers ? The lessee does not deal directly with the leasing company until after the lease is executed and the leasing company has paid the purchase price to the dealer.?  In this case, unlike In re Mercedes-Benz Antitrust Litigation, 364 F. Supp. 2d 468 (D.N.J. 2005), the plaintiffs did not join the dealers or argue that the dealers were in on the conspiracy.  The First also notes that this failure could result in a double recovery (even though the statute of limitations has run.) 

Strangely, the First invokes Lewis Carol like the DC Circuit just did.

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on July 01, 2008 (boomark / email).