Antitrust — venue

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Antitrust — venue

The actions of a subsidiary cannot provide jurisdiction over a parent corporation in an antitrust action.

“[E]ven if we were to conclude that the LLC had waived venue, we would not trace this waiver to GTT, Inc. The activities of a subsidiary may suffice to assert jurisdiction over the parent if there is some basis for piercing the corporate veil, such as the parent’s unusual degree of control over the subsidiary, but this does not apply in the case of an ordinary parent-subsidiary relationship that observes corporate formalities. See Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Reimer Express World Corp., 230 F.3d 934, 943 (7th Cir. 2000); see also Tiger Trash, 560 F.2d at 823 (acknowledging that the parent’s control of its subsidiary must be more extensive than the typical parent-subsidiary relationship to support the exercise of venue over the parent based on the activities of the subsidiary). Here, nothing about the relationship between GTT, Inc. and GTT, LLC suggests an abnormal level of involvement or control by the parent that would allow us to exercise jurisdiction over the parent solely on the basis of the activities of its subsidiary. Venue is not proper under either Section 12 or Section 1391, and the district court therefore properly dismissed the suit. Because we affirm on venue grounds, we need not address GTT’s multiple alternative arguments supporting the district court’s judgment.”

Affirmed.

12-3406 KM Enterprises, Inc., v. Global Traffic Technologies, Inc.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Reagan, J., Wood, J.