Village Supermarkets, Inc. v. Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC.

Issue: (1) Whether an antitrust plaintiff that is neither a competitor nor a consumer in the alleged market has standing under the antitrust laws, particularly when there are other potential plaintiffs that would be more likely to have antitrust standing; and (2) whether this Court’s “objectively baseless” standard for the sham exception to Noerr-Pennington immunity described in Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. (“PRE”) applies to a “series” of underlying cases notwithstanding this Court’s prior decision in California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, and if not, whether four proceedings, each challenging the same construction project, can constitute such a “series” of cases.