Martorano v. PP&L Energy Plus, L.L.C.

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-23-2005
Martorano v. PPL Energy Plus LLC
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-3751
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Martorano v. PPL Energy Plus LLC" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 970.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/970
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 04-3751
________________
JOSEPH MARTORANO, III, d/b/a ENERCO,
Appellant
v.
PP&L ENERGY PLUS, L.L.C.; PP& L, INC.
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 03-cv-05963)
District Judge: Honorable Anita B. Brody
_______________________________________
Argued June 8, 2005
Before: FUENTES, VAN ANTWERPEN and BECKER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 23, 2005)
_______________________
FRANK N. DiMEO, Jr. (Argued)
Rosenn, Schafer & DiMeo, P.C.
121 S. Broad Street, Suite 800
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Attorney for Appellant
DAVID L. MEYER
JAMES ATWOOD, Esq. (Argued)
DEREK LUDWIN
Covington & Burling
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
JOHN G. HARKINS, JR.
STEVEN A. REED
Harkins Cunningham, LLP
2800 One Commerce Square
2005 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-1742
Attorneys for Appellees
________________
BENCH OPINION
_________________
BECKER, Circuit Judge.
Judge Becker: The panel has conferred, and I will deliver a bench opinion which
will constitute the opinion and judgment of the Court.
The order of the District Court will be affirmed. We agree with the District Court
that Martorano and Enerco lack antitrust standing. Enerco is not a competitor or
customer of PP&L. We held in Barton & Pittinos, Inc. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,
118 F.3d 178, 184 (3d Cir. 1997), that advertisers and brokers of a good or service are not
competitors of companies that actually supplied the good or service. That is the case
here. PP&L actually supplied the electricity. Enerco is merely a broker.
If this appeal were not controlled by Barton & Pittinos, it would be controlled by
our recent opinion in Utilimax.com, Inc. V. PPL Energy Plus, LLC, 378 F.3d 303 (3d Cir.
2004), which dealt with the very same “window” as Mr.DiMeo described it, that we are
dealing with here in terms of the history of the electric power sale market in
Pennsylvania. We treated wholesale and retail markets in Utilimax, wholesale and retail
2
markets for electricity capacity in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, as distinct markets, and
held that the plaintiff in LSE was not a competitor of PP&L’s wholesale business.
Mr. Martorano and Enerco are not even LESs. They are two more steps removed
from PP&L’s wholesale electricity business, since Enerco is hired by retail customers
such as the University of Pennsylvania and others to find an LSE. So Enerco is surely not
a competitor either. And even if PP&L does have a brokerage and consulting arm and we
accept Mr. DiMeo’s representation that it does compete with Enerco, the relevant inquiry
is whether they are competitors in the market which was restrained, here the market for
whole electricity. We find the Carpet Group case which Mr. DiMeo relies upon clearly
distinguishable because there everybody involved was trying to sell carpet. See Carpet
Group Intern v. Oriental Rug Importers Ass’c., 227 F.3d 62 (3d Cir. 2000). They were
direct sellers. Martorano and Enerco are not. Were we to go further, we would note our
agreement with Judge Brody that Martorano’s injury is too indirect for antitrust standing.
And Utilimax, if we went beyond standing, would likewise require us to hold that the
Filed Rate Doctrine would bar the suit.
At all events, for the reasons stated, the order of the District Court granting the
motion to dismiss will be affirmed. This constitutes the opinion and judgment of the
Court. I ask Judge Fuentes or Judge Van Antwerpen as to whether you have any
additions or corrections?
Judge Fuentes: I have no additions, correction, and I concur in the decision.
3
Judge Van Antwerpen: I would cite LePage’s v. 3M, 324 F.3d 141 (3d Cir.
2003). There are not necessary allegation of a relevant antitrust market, sustainable
market power and exclusionary predatory conduct, and the Sherman Act Section 2 claim.
With that minor addition, I join wholeheartedly.
Judge Becker: Well, it is not a minor addition. It would be an additional
substantive ground.
Judge Van Antwerpen: Yeah, Yeah.
Judge Becker: but I would agree with that as well.
In due course the Clerk will arrange to have this bench opinion transcribed as a not
precedential opinion of this Court and posted on our website in accordance with our
Court’s practice and indeed as required by Congress by the E-Government Act.
Judge Fuentes: I join in Judge Van Antwerpen’s addition to the decision.
Judge Van Antwerpen: So we’re unanimous.
Judge Becker: Okay, thank you very much. That concludes this proceeding.
4