ILNews

7th Circuit upholds antitrust suit dismissal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a decision by a U.S. District Court in Indiana which threw out a case involving Marathon Petroleum Company and its dealers because the dealers couldn't prove the company violated the Sherman Act.

The Circuit Court upheld the U.S. District Court, Southern Division of Indiana, Indianapolis Division's dismissal of John D. Sherman's complaint in John D. Sherman and S&D Holdings, Inc., on their own behalf and that of all others similarly situated v. Marathon Petroleum Company LLC and Speedway SuperAmerica LLC, No. 07-3543.

Sherman filed the suit against Marathon under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, charging the company with tying the processing of credit card sales to the Marathon franchise and also conspiring with banks to fix the price of processing these transactions.

Marathon dealers had to agree to process Marathon credit cards through a processing service designated by the company; the requirement only applies to Marathon's cards. Dealers are free to use other processing services for other credit cards, but would have to duplicate the system provided by Marathon. Marathon's processing system also can be used for other credit cards, so dealers aren't required to purchase other equipment.

Citing previous caselaw in their decision, the 7th Circuit found flaws in the plaintiffs' charge of illegal tying.

"The additional cost of using multiple card processing systems is not a penalty imposed by Marathon to force the use of its system, but an economy that flows directly from Marathon's offering its own credit card and credit card processing service," wrote Judge Richard Posner. "To call this tying would be like saying that a manufacturer of automobiles who sells tires with his cars is engaged in tying because, although the buyer is free to buy tires from someone else, he is unlikely to do so, having paid for the tires supplied by the car's manufacturer."

Sherman's kickback complaint makes no sense, wrote the judge, because if Marathon is forcing its dealers to pay a lot of money for processing credit card sales, this would only hurt firms that offer credit cards. Judge Posner reasoned that fee would be passed along to the customer in a higher gas price, which will reduce the demand for gas and the credit cards.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT