Legal
What's New Research Government Site Index Home Meetings Directories About ICSC Search ICSC Sign On Publications Education Help Messages



ICSC Legal Database - CasesMonday, February 22, 1999 05:01 PM

Case Index:
00122

Citation:
Alpha Shoe Service v. Fleming Companies Inc., 849 F.2d 352 (8th Cir. 1988).

Issue:
Whether an anti-trust violation occurred where the anchor tenant of a shopping center left its leased premises

empty and then directed its customers to a competing store in the area?

Facts:
Defendant, an Oklahoma corporation and wholesale grocery supplier, purchased several A&P grocery stores in

Missouri. As a result of the purchase, Defendant became the assignee of the A&P lease in the anchor location

of the Ruskin Heights Shopping Center. Defendant closed the A&P, leaving the space empty, and sent the

former customers of this A&P to a competing grocery store four blocks down the street. This competing grocery

 store was also a tenant of Defendant. Plaintiff's tenants at the Ruskin Heights Shopping Center, filed state and

federal anti-trust suits against Defendant. Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant's decision to leave the anchor

location of the shopping center empty resulted in less consumer traffic in the shopping center and therefore less

 business for the tenants. The district court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the anti-trust claims and,

granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' tort claims. The Plaintiffs appealed both of the

district court's decisions.

Holding:
Affirmed. First the Court upheld the district court's decision to grant Defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that

Plaintiffs had no standing to bring a private action under either the federal or state-anti-trust laws, because

Plaintiffs' injuries were not the result of any anti-competitive behavior of anyone in Plaintiffs' economic market.

Defendant's activities occurred in the grocery market. The Plaintiffs were not competitors, participants or

consumers in that

relevant market. A private anti-trust action is not available to remedy every injury suffered by a player in the

general economy. Second the Court held that the District Court had properly granted summary judgment in favor

 of the Defendant on Plaintiffs' tort claims.

Publication:
Legal Update

Date:
Winter 1990

Classification 1:
Landlord and Tenant

Classification 2:

Classification 3:

00122 - Legal Update - Winter 1990