## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 10

- 3062 , 10

- 3068 BCS S ERVICES, I NC ., e tal ., P laint if fs -App el lants , v . H EA R T WOOD 88, LLC , e tal ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No s. 05 C 4095, 07 C1367

—Jam es F. H old erm an, Chief Ju dge

. A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 24, 2011

— D ECIDED M AR CH 24, 2011

Befo re B AUER, P OSNER, an d M A NI ON, Circ uit Ju dg es . P OSNER, Cir cui tJudg e . Th ese con soli d ated ap p eals are f r o m j udg m en ts i n t wo s ui ts s ee k i ng da m ag es unde r the Racket eerI nfl uenced and C or rupt Org ani za tions A ct ( RI CO) , 1 8 U. S
. C. § § 19 61 e t seq
. , f o r mai l fr au d. ( The sui ts ar e m ateri al l y i denti calso we’l l pre tend that t h e y’r e o n e c as e a n d th at th e t w o a p p ea ls a re als o on e.) The dis tr ict c ou rtdi sm i sse d the ca se m or e than fi ve yea rs ag o on the gr ound that the pl ain tiff s l acke d st an ding to s ue b ec au se the y ha dn’ t r el i ed o n the fr au d2 N os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068 and ther ef or e “at best w er e i nd i re ct vi cti m s o fthe al l ege d f ra ud

. ” Phoe nix Bond & Inde m ni ty Co. v. Br i dge, 2 0 0 5 WL 3527 232, at* 5 ( N
. D. I ll. Dec. 21 , 20 05)
. W e r eve rs ed, 47 7 F. 3d 928 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) , and the Suprem e Cour t a ffi rm ed our deci si on. 55 3 U.S
. 63 9 ( 2008 )
. The cas e r etur ned to th e d i s t r i c t co u r t, w h i c h h a s a g a i n d i s mi s s e d , th i s t i me by gran ti ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent f orthe defe nd ants on th e g r o und tha t th e pl ai nt i ff s ca n’ t p rove th atthe fr au d w as a “ proxi m ate cause” ofthei r al l ege d l oss es. A l though that sounds l i ke a di ffer ent g ro und fro m th e fi rs t d ism issal, i t’s actu all y pret ty close. T he district j ud ge’s se co nd o pi ni o n s ta te s th at“ an y num ber o fr ea so ns wh o l l y u n r e l a t e d t o De f e n d a n t s ’ a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s o ft he SS BR [ the r ule thatthe defe nd ants ar e a l l ege d to have vi o l at ed to eff ec tu at e th e f r au d] co ul d i m pac t th e val ue ofPl ai nti ff s’ l i en por tf ol i os: [ am ong othe rs, ] the Treasure r’ s dete rm i nati on o fwh etherto barDef en d an ts f r o m t he s a l e s , a nd i fs o f o r h o w l o ng ; the a c t i o ns o fthi r dpartybi dd er s, i ncl ud i ng how quick l y they bid ; the aucti onee rs ’ subj ecti ve aw ar d i ng o fl i ens; and the proper ty o wn e r s ’ d e c i s i o n t o r e d e e m th e p r o p e r t y . ” 2 0 1 0 WL 352 64 69 , a t * 14 ( N
. D. I l l

. S ept. 1, 20 10)
. The o nl y s i gn ifica n t d i f f e r en c e b et w ee n th e t w o op in ion s is th at in r o und o ne the j udg e di smi ss ed th e s ui t be ca us e the pl ai nti ff s wer e ( he r ul ed) o nl y i ndi r ec t vi ct i m s o fthe fr au d and i n r ou n d two he g ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm ent f or th e d e f e n d a n t s b e c a u s e h e th o u g h tt ha t a l th o u g h we and th e S upr eme Cou r t ha d he l d th at th e pl ai nt i ffs w ere di r ec t vi ct i m s, the y ha d no t be eni nj ur ed di r ec tl y ; the ca us all i nkb etwee n the fr au d a nd the i nj ur y was “ te nuous. ” Id

. at* 13. The cas e i s a gai n bef ore u s on app ealby the pl ai nti ff s.N os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068 3 W hen an o w ner ofpro perty in C ook County, I l l i noi s, f ai l s to pay hi s proper ty tax on ti m e, the am ount of tax that i s due ( w hi ch i s t o say past du e) bec om es a l i en o n the pr oper ty. The co unty se l l s it s tax li ens a t a ucti ons. The bi ds at the a ucti ons ar e s tat ed as perce ntage s o f th e ta xe s pas t due

. The pe r ce nt age , mul ti pl i ed bythe am ou n t ofpast- du e t axes ( plus any inter estdue on them , w hi ch w e’ l l i gnor e) , i s the “penal ty” thatthe bi dd er demands fr o m the o wnert o c l ea r the l i en . The wi nni ng bi dd eris the bi dd erwh o bi ds ( that i s, i s wil l i ng to accept) the l owest pen alty

— often z er o perce nt o fthe tax due , mean i ngtha t th e bi dderi s j us t o ff er i ngt o pa y the Cou nt y the pa st
- due t ax es a nd r ec eive in exc ha ng e th e l i en . T h e ta xpayer has t w o to thre e y ear s i n w hi ch to er as e th e l i enb y pa y i ngthe wi nne r o fthe a uct i o n ( an d he nc e ne w ow ner o fthe l i en ) the pa st
- due t ax es tha t th e w i nner had pai d the County, plus the penal ty ( i f any)
. If th e ta xpa y erf ai l s to r ede em bypa y i ngwhath e o wes , the p urc ha se r o fthe l i enc ano bt ai n a t ax de ed to the p ro p er ty an d th u s b ec om e t h e p ro p er t y ’s o w n er . In dec i di ngwhi cht ax l i en s be i nga uct i o ned to bi d f o r, a nd how m uc h to bid ( w he th er a ze r o -p ercen t pe na lty, or a 5 p er c ent penal ty, o r any o therper cent) , the w oul d-be tax l ienor is looki ng f or prop erties, ( 1) w hos e ow ne rs are unli kel y t o re deem them by paying the past- du e t axes d uring the red em p tion p eriod an d ( 2) are w orth m ore th a n th e p a s t
- d u e t a x e s o n th e m. The auc ti o ns a r e co nduc te d i n r api d- fi r e f as hi o n i n a ro om i n w hi ch the bi dd er s bi d by r ai si ng a car d w i th the i r b i dde r I D n umb e r a nd s ho ut i ngo utthe i r p e na l ty per cen tage ( us ua l l y “ ze r o ! ”)
. Al m o st8 5 per ce nto fthe4 N os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068

w i nning bi ds ar e a t the ze ro - perce nt penal ty l eve l, wh i ch i m pli es th at m ostbi ds ar e i denti calbi ds ( i denti calze ro perce nt bi ds ). H ow is the aucti onee r to pickthe w i nner in suc h a ca se? It’s d iffi cu lt! Sup p ose fi fteen bid d ers bi d z er o pe r ce nto n a pa r ti cul arl i enb einga uctio ne d. The bi ds be i ngi den ti ca l, the a uct i o ne erwi l l t r y t o a war d the l i ent o the b i dderw ho r ai se d hi s ha nd fi r st
. Buti fmany bi dder s r ai se d the i r ha nds a s so o n a s th e bidd in gb eg an, th e au ct i o ne ermay fi nd i t i m po ss ibl e to de te r m i ne w h o ra ise d h is h an d f i r s t, in w h ich ev en t h e’ll p ro b ab ly p i c ko n e o fth e z e r o b i d d e r s a tr a n d o m. Bidders use a var i etyo fta cti cs t o a ttr act the a ucti onee r’ s atte nti on, such a s byl obby i ng to be gi ven a se at cl oser t o the a uct i o ne ers o tha t th e bi dder ’ s r ai se d ha nd is m ore l ikel y t o be noticed first. A few of th e au ctione ers cl ai m i m probabl y that they can al w ays tel l w ho rais ed hi s o r her hand fir st, no m att erhow m any hands s hoot u p a ll over th e room , w hile others say th at w he n th ere ar e m ul ti pl e i den ti ca l b i dder s th eytr y t o a l l o ca te the awar ds “f ai r l y , ” what ev ertha t m ea ns

— probabl y i t j ust m ea n s not a w ar ding too m any l i ens t o the s am e bi dd er at the s am e a ucti on. S o on th e one hand l i ens a re not aw ar ded o n a s tr i ct r ota ti onalbas i s but on the oth er ha nd a j ur y c o ul d fi nd thatmo s tz e r o - pe r c e nta wa r ds ar e the r andom pro du ct o fgues sw or k. The Co un t y ’ s r ul e s p e r mi to nl y o ne a g e nto fa p o t e nt i al buyer, o r ofa gr oup ofco oper ati ng buye rs ( “r elat ed en t i t ies ”), to bid . Ot h er w ise a p ot en tia l bu ye r c ou ld i nc r e a s e th e l i k e l i h o o d o fw i n n i n gb y p a c k i n gth e r o o m. S up po s e tha t a po t e nt i a l b uy e r, c a l l hi m “ Bi dCo , ” wasN os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068 5

r e p r e s e n t e d b y 1 0 p e r s o ns

— but th e au ct i o ne ertho ug ht th eywer e 10 di ff er en t bi dders

— and al l the othe r po te nt i alb uy er s w er e r epr es en te d b y o ne pe r so n e ac h, a s the y ’ r e s up po s e d t o b e . Bi dCo wo ul d have a bi ga dv a n t a ge. I f for ex am p le there w ere 21 p oten tial bu yers an d a l l bid z er o pe r ce ntf o r a pa r ti cul art ax l i en, 30 h a n d s w o u ld be sh oo tin g u p bu t 1 0 o f th em w ou ld b elo n g to on e bu ye r. W h et h er th e au c tio n ee r w a s ab le to p ick th e b id d er w h o ra ise d h i s h a n d first, or as is mor e l i k e l y the r e wa s s i mpl y a di s t r ib ut i ono fh a nd

ra i si ng spee ds and w ell-s i ted se ats , the buyerwh o had 10 hand s i n the ro om would have an a dvantage o ver each o fthe othe r 20 potentia l b u yer s. H e would be l i kel i erto h av e som e f asthands and som e r i ngsi de sea ts, as wel l as h aving a n a dva nt ag e j us t byv i r tu e o fthe nu mbe r o fh ands, wh e n the a uc t i o ne e r thr e w u p his hand s a nd awarded l i ens r andom l y a m ong the z er oper ce ntb i dder s, o r t r i ed to r o ta te the m a m o ngthe bi dd er s i n the i nter esto f“fai rnes s. ” I fBi dC o’ s v i ol ati on of t h e p ro h ibit ion ag ain st rela te d en t i t i es ’ m u ltip le bi dd i ng were concea l ed, so thathi s s chem e o perat ed as a fra ud o n the one- ar m ed bi dd er s, Bi dC o w ou l d have e ng a g e d i n a pa t t e r n o fma i l fr a ud i n v i o l a t i o n o fR I CO b ec au se , as w e e x p lain ed in o u r firs t o p in ion , “th e t ax -sa le p ro c es s e m p loy s t h e m ail

— perha ps to s en d a ffi dav i ts , a nd cer tai nl y to se nd not i ces to own er s that the l i ens hav e be e n s o l d a nd the t a xe s mus tb e p a i d o r the p r o pe r ty forfeited ,” a nd “an y fr au d that affects w hich bidd ers obt ai n how m any l i ens i s ‘ m ai l fra ud

. ’ ” 4 77 F. 3d at 930. The case i s a l i ttl e m or e com p li cate d than w e’ ve l et on so far bec au se th ree sep arate grou p s (w hos e m em bers6 N os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068 are the de fend an ts) ofa lle ged ly related entities are accused ofthe f ra ud

. A s a r esul t, i nstea d ofhavi ng j ust thre e a rm s the d efendants had bet w een 1 1 a nd 39 , with up t o 1 3 be i ngus ed i n a g i ve n a uct i o n ses si o n dur i ng th e si x yea rs i n w hi ch the conspi ra ci es ar e a l l ege d to have been oper ati ng. In each o fthe thre e co nspir aci es a kingp in fi na nc ed the bid d ing activity of the group ’s m em b er s an d w h en th e k in gp in ag en t’s bid d er w ou ld win a l i e n th e k i n g p i n w o u l d b u y i tfr o m h i m. For pu rpos es of thi s appeal ( onl y) , the defendants concede that they com m i tte d a fra ud act i onabl e under RI CO i ft h e p l ai nti ff s ca n prov e bo th pro xi m ate cause and dam age s. The di str i ct j ud ge gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm en t f o r the de f endan ts b ec au se he tho ug httha t th e p lai nt iffs

— tw o of the one- ar m ed bi dd er s at th e a ucti o ns

— ha d f ai l ed to prod uce ev i den ce tha t th e f r au d was a pr o xi m at e ca us e o f th ei r l o singa ny o fthe b i ddi ng ro und s. T h e inje c tio n of th e t er m “p ro x im at e c au se ” in to th is l i ti gat i on has m ud die d the water s. I t w as i nj ecte d fo r no bet te r reaso n

— and i t i s no t a go od r eas on

— than that it h as figu re d in s ev er a l R IC O ca se s d ec id ed rec en tly by the S up re m e Cour t, none com parabl e t o thi s ca se. You cannot obt ai n dam age s f orfra ud o r an y o ther tor t, wh etheryo u ar e l i ti gat i ng under co m m on law or the RI CO s t a t ut e , wi tho ut pr o v i ng tha t the f r a ud cause d a l oss to yo u, such a s a fi nanci al l oss , f orwh i ch da mag e s c a n b e a wa r de d. T he p r o b l e m i s tha tthe r e may be m ult i ple cause s o fyo ur l oss , o bscur i ng the e ffec t o f th e d efend an t’s w rongfu l act . Som etim es th e cau ses areN os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068 7 j oin t. Fo r ex am p le, a p as se rb y d ro p s a m at c h in a p u d d le o fo i l cre at ed by a lea k fro m a ta n ke r tr u c k, an d th e o il ex p lod es . H K Sys t em s, Inc . v. Eat on Corp
. , 55 3 F
. 3d 1086 , 10 90 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); Leposki v. R ailway Ex pre ss Agency, Inc. , 29 7 F.2 d 8 49 (3 d C ir. 19 62 ); O versea s Ta nk ship Ltd . v. M iller St e am s hip Co. , [1 9 6 7 ] 1 A
. C
. 617 (P.C.) ( The Wagon M oun d N o . 2 )
. W i thout both m atch and l eak

— hazar ds cr eat ed bys epa r at e per so ns

— th ere woul d b e no e xpl o si o n a nd so no har m . W ho s houl d be l i abl e? So m eti m es causes ar e a l tern at ive: a perso n i s s tabbe d bytw o kn i f e- wi el di nga ss ai l an ts , a nd e i th ers tab wound w oul d ha ve b ee n f atal

. S houl d both b e e xcused f ro m li abili ty bec a us e neith er w as ne cess ary for th e inj ury to occur? U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 38 0 F
. 3d 1013 , 10 16 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. A nd l i kewis e when e ac h o ftwo w ro ngd oe rs co u ld h av e c a u se d th e p lain tiff’s inju ry an d it is uncle arwh ich d id and eac h poi nts a t the o therand say s l et m e o ffbec ause the o therguy m ay h av e done i t. Sum m ers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1 ( C al. 1948). Or so m eti m es

— an d he r e i s wher e th e do ct r i ne o f p roxim atecau se d oes its w ork

— too m any unexpected thi ngs ha d to ha ppen be twe en th e defen dan t’ s w ro ng do i ng and the pl ain tiff’ s i nj ury, i n or der f orthe i nj ury to o cc ur

— so many u nexpe ct ed th i ng s th atthe de f en dan t co ul d n ’ th a v e f o r e s e e n th e e ff e c to fh i s wr o n g d o i n ga nd th er efo r e co ul dn’ t ha ve b ee n i nfl ue nc ed, i n de ci di ng how m uch car e t o em plo y i n the acti vi ty that produced th e w rongful act, by the pros pect o fi nfl i cti ng such a n inj u ry as oc c u r re d . See , e.g., G alli ck v. Ba lt im ore & O hio R. R. , 372 U .S. 10 8, 11 8 a n d n . 7 (19 63 ); H KS ystem s, Inc . v.8 N os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068 Eaton Corp. , sup ra , 5 53 F
. 3d a t 1 09 0. And the n h o l di ng hi m l i ab l e woul d ha ve l i tt l e eff ec t i n de te r r i ngwro ng ful conduct. A b e t t e r na me f o r the a pp l i c a t i o n o f the do c t ri ne o f p r o xim ate caus e in su ch a case w ou ld be “f or w an t of a nai l the ki ngdom was l ost ”:

For wa nt of a nail the s hoe wa s lost
. For wa nt of a shoe the horsewa s lost
. For wa nt of a horset he r iderwa s lost
. For wa nt of a ri dert he b attl e w as l ost. For wa nt of a batt let he kingdom wa s lost
. A nd all for the w ant of a hors es hoe nail. S uppo se the b l ac k sm ith ha d b ee n n eg l i g en t i n f ai l i ng to fa ste n the hor ses hoe to the ho rs e’ s ho ofwith e nough na il s to hold i t se c u r e ly. H is negli gen ce w as th erefore a ca use o f th e l o ss o fthe k i ng do m b ec au se i t l ed to the l oss o fo ne o fthe rid ers, wh i ch l ed i n turn to the defeat of the king’s arm y. (A nd not j us t any rid er: Shake sp eare i n R ichard IIIat tr ibuted Ri chard’ s l oss o fthe Battl e o f Bos wo r th F i e l d, a nd thu s o f hi s l i f e a nd hi s c r o wn, to hi s f al l i ng o ffh is hor se because the hor se w as not p ro p er ly sh od ; i n fac t t h e h or se h ad g o tt en m ire d in th e m u d of th e fie ld , for r e as on s u n re lat ed to h is s h oe .) B u t h ad th e b lac ks m ith be e n t o l d ah ea d of tim e t h at if he di dn ’ t f ast en the sho e pr oper l y he could be re

spo ns ibl e f o r th e end o fthe Yo r kdy na sty , the war ni ng w ou ld n ot ha ve ind uc ed him t o use ad d iti ona l care i n f ast eni ng the shoe to the hoof because th e p robabi l i ty that hi s neg l i gence would have such a con se quence w oul d have s eem ed sl i ght. A n i nj ury w il l so m eti m esN os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068 9 h av e a ca sc ad in g e ffec t t h at n o p ot en tia l inju re r c ou ld c a l c u lat e in d ec id in g h ow ca re fu lly to ac t. T h e e ffec t is cl ea r i n h i nds i g ht

—but o nl y i n hi nd si ght. A m or e re alis tic m od er n ex am p le w ou ld be a su it ag a i ns tthe de f e nd a nt s i n o urc a s e b y s o meo ne wh o l ost hi s j ob because the one- ar m ed bi dd erwh o em p loy ed hi m di dn ’ twi n e no ugh t a x l i e ns a tthe a uc t i o ns t o be abl e to aff or d t o kee p hi m on i ts payro l l

. The em plo yee w oul d have s uffer ed a l oss cause d by the defendants ( ass um i ng thei r f ra ud w as i nd eed w hat i m pel l ed the onear m ed bi dd erto r educe hi s s taff ) , but a s i n a l i ter alwanto f

- a - na i l c a s e the i r c o nd uc two ul d n o tb e de e med a “pr o xi m ate ca us e” o fthe e m pl o y ee ’ s l o ss o fhi s j o b, a nd so h is s u it w ou ld fail. Evans v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 43 4 F
. 3d 91 6, 92 6-2 9 (7th C i r . 2 00 6); M i d- St at eFe r t i l ize rCo. v. Exch angeNat ’ l Bank, 877 F.2d 133 3, 1335 -36 (7th C ir. 1989); Fra nkv. D ’A m bro si, 4 F. 3d 1378, 1385 (6t h C ir. 1993); H ec ht v. Co m m er ceCleari ng H ouse, Inc. , 89 7 F
. 2d 21, 23

- 24 ( 2d Cir

. 19 90 ). S i m i l ar l y, a cre dit orwh o suf f er s a defa ultbec au se hi s debt orwas i nj ured by a tor t ca nnot su e th e to r tf easorf o r the da m ag es r es ul tingfr o m the d efa u lt. In reTe kne k, LL C, 563 F.3d 639 , 6 4 5 -5 0 (7th C ir. 20 09 ); K o ch R efinin g v . Farm ers U nio n C entra l E xc ha ng e, Inc. , 83 1 F
. 2d 1339 ( 7th Cir
. 1987 )
. I f the cre dit or coul d sue, w h y n ot th e c r e d ito r’s so n w h o h ad to bo rro w for h is tui ti on be cause hi s f at her coul d no l onge r aff or d to pay it? Or th e c o lle ge, ifthe son w as tu rned dow n for a l o ana nd ha d t o wi th dr aw? Or the b o o k st o r e atwhi chthe so n wo ul d ha ve b o ug htthe b o o k s fo r hi s co ur se s ha d he re m ai ned a stud ent? Or the publi shero fthe boo ks sold10 N os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068 by the b oo kst or e? Orthe c om panie s that s ol d pap erto the publ i sher s? Or the author s? N otice ho w a llo w ing an y of th ose secon d ary or terti ary o r e ve n mor e r emot e to r t vi ct i m s to ob ta i n a j udg m en t woul d d i m the pr i m ar y v i ct i m ’ s pr o spe ct s o fo bt ai ni ng red ress for his i nju r y. A ny tortfeasor’s resources are l i m i ted. The m or e p lainti ff s there ar e cl am or i ng f or re l i e f, the l e s s i n da mag e s e a c h o ne may b e a b l e to r ecove r. Th at is a furth er reason, along w ith a d esire to lim it t h e a m ou n t o f litiga tio n aris in g fro m a sin gle w ro n gfu l ac t a n d t o c o n fin e t or t liab ility to fore se ea b le ( as dist i nct fro m s o i m probabl e a s t o be unf or ese eabl e) co ns eque nc es , f o r l i m i tingthe r ight to r el i eft o the i ni ti al v ic ti m s o fthe wro ng, a s i n Jam e s Cape& So ns Co. v. PCC Co n s t r u c t i on Co
. , 453 F.3d 396 ( 7th Cir. 200 6), o n w h i c h o u r d e f e n d a n t s r e l y . T h e p l a i n t i ff, a c o mpeti ng bi dd eras i n thi s ca se ( hence the defendants’ r el i an ce ) , s ue d the wi nni ngb idd ers o n the g r o und th at th ey h ad ag re ed a m on g t h em se lve s n ot to bid l ess o n sta te const ructi on co ntrac ts than an ag re ed a mo u n t, s o a s t o ma x i mi z e th e i r p r o fi t s fr o m a w i nning bi d. ( Pro babl y they a l so agr eed to r ota te subm i ss i o n o fthe w inn i ngb i d a m o ngthe mem be r s o fthe grou p , so that each w ou ld sh ar e in th e profit opp ortu n ity th at th e c on sp ira c y c re at ed .) Th e p rim ar y v ict im was the S ta te o fW i sc o ns i n, whi chha d s o l ici ted th e bi ds; i t had pai d m or e f or the const ructi on contra cts ob ta in ed by the winni ng bi dd er s than i fther e had be en no con sp ir a c y . Th e plaintiff, i n con trast, proba bly had n’t been i nj ured atal l and m i ght wel l have bene fi ted fro m the c o ns pi r a c y b e c a us e the hi g he r hi s c o mpe t i t o r s ’ b i dsN os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068 11 th e l i k el i erhe was t o b e t he l o w bi ddera nd wi n the contr act. S ee Phoe nix Bond & Inde m ni ty Co. v. Br i dge, sup ra , 477 F. 3d at 932. There i s st i l l a no th err ea so n f o r wor r y i ngabo ut i m po singl i ab i l i tywhenthe de f en dan t’ s co nduc t a nd the p lai nt iff’ s inj ury are sep arated by i nt erm ed iate pa irs of c au se an d effe c t. T h e h or se sh oe w as m i s s i n g a n ail, yes , but i t m i ght ha ve f al l en o ffanyw ay , in the heat of batt l e; and how li kel y i s i t that on e dow ned ri der ( unle ss i t r eal l y was t h e king) m ade the diff er ence between vi cto ryand def eat ? ( A nd m i ghtn’ t he have fa ll en any w ay?) A nd i n the em plo ym ent c ase , m igh t n ot othe r f acto rs have doom ed the em plo yee ’ s j ob? There i s pl enty ofem plo yee tur noverev en wh en the em plo yeri s no t a v i c t i m o ffr a ud

. T he “ind irect pu rch aser” ru le of Il l i noi s Br i ckCo. v. Il li nois , 43 1 U .S. 72 0, 73 0-3 6 (19 77 ), is a n ot ab le e x a m p le of th e ev iden tiary conc erns that l ead cou rts to disregard se co nda r y c au sa l r el at i o ns . S uppo se c o m pet i ngmanuf actur er s co nspir e t o ra i se the pr ice s o fthei r products, in v iol ation of fed eral an titrust law

. Th e bu yers

— supp ose th ey’re retailde alers

— p ay th e h ig h er prices, but tu rn arou nd and rai se th e pr ic e s th ey ch arge th eir p urch as er s, the c o ns um er s, i n an effor t to min i m i ze the im p act on thei r profi ts ofthe m anufa cture rs ’ hi gher pri ces. The i nj ury caused by the pri ce- fi xi ng co nspir acy is li k el y t o b e sh ar ed be twe enthe di r ec t pur ch as er s f r o m the c ons pi r at o r s an d the i ndi r ec t o ne s ( th e co nsum er s i n the exam ple )
. But to deter m i ne the r el ati ve hurt woul d r equi r e a co m pl ex i nqui r y , a nd s o the i nd i re ct purchas er s, tho ugh harm ed, ar e no t a l l owed to12 N os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068

sue. Thi s m ay see m a harsh r esul t, but i s m i ti gat ed by the f act that the a nti tr ust v i ol ato rs ar e no t a l l owed to o ff se t ag ai ns t th ei r liabil i tythe a m o unto fl o ss tha t th e dir ect pu rchas er s, the deal er s, w h o ar e a l l owed to sue, w er e ab le t o pass o n to thei r custo m er s i n the f or m o f high er p rices. By all ow ing a w ind fal l to the direct p urch asers

— th e y c a n s u e f o r th e fu l l ma r k u p o v e r th e c o mp et itiv e p ric e fo r th e m a n u f a c tu re rs ’ p ro d u c t e ve n if th ey p assed on m uc h of the h igher p rice to consu m ers

— th e law giv es th em a gr ea te r in c en tiv e t o s u e , w h ich sh ou ld i ncre ase deter re nce, w hi ch shoul d benefi t the i nd i re ct pu rchas er s i nd i re ctl y. The do ct r i ne o fpro xi m at e ca us e th us pr o te ct s th e abil i ty ofpri m ar y v i cti m s o fwrongful conduct to o btai n com p en sat i on; si m pli fi es l i ti gat i on; r eco gni zes the l i m i tat i ons ofde terr ence ( unfo re see abl e co nsequences o fa perso n’s a cts w i l l noti nfl uence hi s deci si on on h ow sc ru p u lou sly to co m p ly w ith th e la w ); an d elim inates so m e a ctualo r possibl e but pr ob ab ly m i nor cause s as gr ounds ofl ega l l i abi l i ty. A l l t h i s i s t rue i n RI CO cas es j us t as i n o th ert o r t ca se s whether c o m m o n l aw o r s ta tu
to ry . H ol m es v . S e cu r i t i e s Inve s t orPr ot e ct i on Corp
. , 50 3 U .S. 25 8 (1 99 2); H K Sys t e m s , Inc. v. Eat on Corp
. , sup ra , 55 3 F. 3d at 1090
. The doctr i ne has no a pp l i cati on t o thi s ca se, atl ea st on the rec or d com pil ed to date. The defendants’ ai m was to o b t a i n a l a r g e r s h a r e o ft a x l i e n s . T h e l a r g e r s h a r e c a me f r o m o the r b i dde r s , the b i dde r s we ’ r e c a l l i ngo ne - a r med

. The only i nj ur y w as to tho se b i dder s, who i nc l ude d the tw o pla i nti ff s. Th e County’ s r ule l i m i ti ng r el ate d enti ti esN os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068 13 to a sin gle bid d in g a ge n t w as int en d ed for t h e b en efit of unrel ate d bi dd er s r atherthan f ori ts own bene fit ( except v er y in d ire ctl y, i nsof aras the rul e e ncoura ged bi dd i ng)
. I t was a m att ero fi n d iffer ence to the County w ho b o ught the t a x l i e ns , f o r who e v e r i t wa s wo ul d have to pay th e C ounty the t axes on the pro perti es subj ect to th e lien s. T h e o n e-a rm ed bid d er s w e r e t h u s t h e o n ly vi ct i m s o f th e fr au d

— and the pl ai nti ff s were one- ar m ed bi dd er s. The de f en dan ts s to l e a bus i ne ss o ppo r tu ni tyfr o m the pla i nti ff s byfl oo ding the a ucti on r oo m with r ai sed ha nd s th at sh ou ldn ’t have b een there. Th e only i nt ermedi ate ca us e a nd e ff e c tp a i r wa s the r a i s i ngo fh a nd s ( ca us e) a nd the a uct i o ne er ’ s det er m i na ti o n o fthe wi nni ngb i d ( eff ec t) , a nd thi s pai r do es n’ t w eaken the i nfe re nce th at b y h avi ng m or e hands i n the ai r the def endants st ol e t ax liens fro m the othe r bi dd er s. That woul d b e o bv i o us i fthe a uct i o ne er s awar d ed t ax l i en s i n i den ti ca l

-bi d c as es o n a strictl y r o ta ti o na l b as i s, a s th e S upr eme Co ur t as su m ed when, i n i ts o pi ni o n a ffi r m i ng our previ ous deci sion , i t char acte ri zed the pla i nti ff s’ theo ryo fcausa ti on a s “ str aig h tforward. ” 5 53 U
. S. at64 7; see al so H em i G rou p, LL C v. C ity of N ew Yo rk, 13 0 S
. Ct. 98 3, 992 (2010 ). Straight fo rw ard i t w as an d after discovery s t r a i g ht f o r wa r d i tr e mai ns b e c a us e , a s we s ha l l s e e, r a nd o m a wa r ds

— th e c h ar ac t e r of m an y of t h e a w ar d s in i den ti ca l z er o - per ce ntb i ddi ng

— a r e s i mi l a r t o a wa r ds m ade on a s tr i ctl y r ota ti onalbas i s. The d efendants a rg ue thati fther e i s anyp os sib le s lip

‘ twi xt c u p a n d l i p s ( t o c o n t i n u e l a w b y p r o v e rb ) , the14 N os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068 pl aint i ffmustpr o ve tha t i t di d no t o cc ur . Nots o . The pla i nti ffdoes n’thave to pro ve a s er i es ofneg ativ es; h e d oe sn ’t h av e t o “ ’ o f f e r ev id en c e w h ich p os itiv ely ex c lu d e[s ] ev er y ot h er p os sib le c a u se of th e a c c id en t.’ ” Carl s on v. Chi s hol m -M ooreHoi s tCorp. , 281 F. 2d 76 6, 770 ( 2d Cir

. 19 60) ( Fr i endly, J
. ) , quoti ng R osenb erg v. Schw artz , 1 8 3 N
. E
. 2 8 2 , 2 8 3 ( N. Y
. 1 9 3 2 )
. I n t e c hn i c a l l e g a l t e r ms the b urden ofpro vi ng an “i nter veni ng ca use”

— so m ethi ng w hi ch snaps the “ca usalchai n” ( that is, o perat es as a “supers edi ng cause, ” w i ping out the defe nd an t’s l i abi l i ty, se e R es tate m ent( Second) of To rts § 440 (1965)) th atc o nne ct s th e wro ng ful a ctt o the de f en dan t’ s i nj ury

— is on th e d e fen d an t. Robe r t s v. Pr i nt up , 59 5 F
. 3d 1181 , 1189-90 (10th Cir. 2010). The di st r i ctj udg e r equired th e pl ai nt i ff s to pr o ve the nonexi ste nce o fpote nti alsupers edi ng ca uses ra ther than r equi ri n g the defendants to pre sent evi dence to su p p or t th eir c onj ec tu re d su p er se d in g ca u se s. H e sa id that othe rwis e “ a j ury w oul d be f or ced to specul ate as to w hetherDef endants vi ol ati ng the [ re l at ed-e nti ti es r ul e] woul d [ i fthe Tr ea su rer, who a dm i ni st er s th e ta xl i en auct i ons, had l ear ned ofthe vio l ati on be f or e o r d u rin g t h e c om p lain t p er i o d ] h av e b ee n p er m an en tly b ar re d from th e C ou n ty ta x lien sa le s , e x c lu d ed for on ly a day ora yea r, o r f aced so m e o therunknown co nseq u en c e.” 20 1 0 W L 35 26 46 9, at *8. T h is p os sib ility w ou ld cancelthe eff ect ofthe defe nd an ts ’ fraud on the num ber o f l i e ns wo n b y the pl a i nt i ff s o nl y i f wha t e v e r sa ncti on the Tr eas ureri m p os ed w oul d have a l l owed the def endants to co nti nue violat i ng the r el ate d-enti ti es rul e: f o r e xa m pl e if she woul d ha ve b ar r ed th em f r o m b i ddi ngN os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068 15 f oro ne day but al l ow t h em to r esum e thei r col l usi ve a c t i v i t y th e d a y a ft e r . T h a t i s b e y o n d u n l i k e l y , a nd ha r dl y “ ev i den ce ” o fa s upe r se di ngc au se tha t th e pl ai nt i ff s w o u l d h a v e t o r e b u t i n o r d e r t o w i th s t a n d s u mm ar y j ud gm ent. A nd so the pla i nti ff s ca n’tbe fau lte d, as th e defen dan ts a r g ue , f o r ha vi ng fail ed to de po se the Treas urer

— the defendants, wh o had the bur den of proving tha t the Tre asur erwould have l et them o ffscot f r ee , di dn’ t do so eithe r . Had the Tr ea su r erf o r ce d the de f e nd ants t o s t o p c o l l ud i ngi n v i o l a t i o n o fthe r e l a t e denti ti es rul e ( and i n vi ol ati on a s wel l o fthe oath they ha d s wor n, w he n the y s i g ne d up t o b i d i n the a uct i o n, to com plywith t he r el ate d-enti ti es rul e) , the one- ar m ed b i dde r s wo ul d h a v e o b t a i ne d mo r e l i e ns tha n the y di d. The de f en dan ts pr es en t o th eri m pl au sibl e spe cul at i o ns co nc erni ngpo ssibl e su per se di ngc au se s, a nd de m an d th atthe pl ai nt i ff s r efut e th em. They a r g ue tha t th e “pl ai nti ff s’ f ai l ur e to o bt ai n m o r e l i en s th anthe y a ctual l y won coul d have be en the r esul t ofco m peti ti on fro m thi r d- pa r t y b i dde r s , the a uc t i o ne e r s ’ s ubj e c t i v e p e r c e pti ons, o r f ai l ures o fPl ai nti ff s’ bi dd ers to k eep pace w i th the a ucti on a nd to bi d on l i en s th ey m ay have i ntended to bid on.” T he d efend an ts not e th at one ofth e p lai nt iffs co m pl ai ne d t o the Tr ea su r er ’ s Of fi ce tha t i t was b eing “r ele ga te d ” t o “ se at s in th e b ac k of t h e r oo m w h er e it was di ffi cul t f o r the b i dder s to b e r ec o g ni ze d, a nd the au ct i o ne er s to v i ew the m ” an d tha t a bi dderf o r the othe r pla i nti ffadm i tte d that s he m i ght h av e be en s l o we r a tr a i s i n gh e r h a n d t ha n o th e r b i d d e r s o n s o me occa sions. Bu t so far as yet ap p ears

— for of course th ere has be en no tr i al

— th es e wer e i so l ated i ns ta nc es o ve r the16 N os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068

cou rse of six years. A nd a s f o r w he th er the p lai nt iffs wer e o utbid by b i dder s who wer e no t m embe r s o fthe co ns pi r ac i es , thi s i s unl i k el y s i nc e th e ca se i s o nl y abo ut i denti calzero - perce nt bids (s o ther e are o nl y l ow bi dd er s, ra therthan a l owest bi d), and the defe nd ants prese nted no e vi dence to es tabl i sh such a supers edi ng c au se of the pl ai nti ff s’ i nj ury. The defe nd ants w er e thro w i ng sa nd i n the dist ri ct j ud ge’ s e yes . The o bj ect ofthei r conspi ra ci es w as to obt ai n l i ens that wou ld other w i se go to one- ar m ed bid d ers

— ther e co uld be no othe r re aso n fo r w anti ng to pac kthe r o o m i n v i o l at i o n o fthe Co unty ’ s r ul e. The pl ainti ff s wer e m aj o r b i dder s. The y b i d f o r many tho us a nd s o f l i e ns . Ho w l i k e l y i s i t tha t the y l ost no bi ds to bi dde r s who ha d 1 3 a r ms i n the r o o m b ut s ho ul d hav e had onl y three ? Onc e a p l a i n t i ff p r e s e n t s e v i d e n c e th a t h e s u ff e r ed th e sor t of i nj ury that w oul d b e the expecte d co nsequence o fthe de f en dan t’ s wro ng ful c o nduc t, he ha s do ne en o ug h t o wi th st an d s um m ar y j udgm en t o n the g r o und of ab se n c e o fca u sa tio n . Li r i ano v. Hob ar tCorp. , 17 0 F
. 3d 26 4, 27 1-7 2 (2 d C ir. 19 99 ); Kin gs t on v. Chi cago & N
. W
. Ry. , 211 N
. W
. 91 3, 91 5 ( W i s. 19 27 ); M ar t i n v . He rzog, 1 2 6 N. E. 814, 81 6 ( N
. Y. 19 20) ( Cardozo , J
. ) (“ evidence ofa col l i si on o cc ur r i ngmor e th an a n h o ur a fte r s undo wn be twe ena c ar an d an u n s ee n bu gg y, p ro c ee d in g w ith ou t ligh ts , i s evi dence fro m wh i ch a causalco nnecti on m ay be i nfer r ed be twe enthe co l l i si o n and th e l ac ko fs i g na l s” )
. The ca us alr el at i o n b etw eena de f en dan t’ s ac t an d a pl ai nti ff’ s i nj ury, l i ke that re quir ed to est abl i sh st anding und erN os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068 17 A rt i cl e I I Io fthe Consti tution , n eed o nl y b e pr obab l e. C li n t o n v . C ity of N ew Yo rk, 524 U
. S. 417, 432-33 (1998 ); M ainStree t O rganiz a ti o n of Realt ors v. C alum etCity, 50 5 F.3 d 74 2, 74 4-4 5 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); Vil l age o f E lk Gr ove Villa gev. Evans , 9 97F
. 2d 32 8, 3 29 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 3)
. Othe rw i se how co uld a perso n obt ai n a j ud gm en t for m edi cal m al pract i ce b ase d on a f ailure to di agno se a di sea se th at p roved fatal bu t ha d it been d iagnose d ea r li er m ight have been cured? M at s uyama v. Bir nb aum , 89 0 N
. E.2 d 81 9, 82 8-3 1 a n d n . 23 (M as s. 20 08 ); H ol t on v. M e m or i al H os pi t al , 679 N .E .2d 12 02 , 121 3 a n d n . 2 (Ill . 199 7); D oll v. Br own , 75 F. 3d 1 200, 12 05- 07 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96)
. A nd how coul d fo ur e quall y qual i fi ed em plo yee s who w er e di scrim inated ag ai nst when a co m pany m ade a si ngl e pr om o ti o n o bt ain an y r el i ef ? Ye t we’ ve he l d tha t th e pl ai ntiffi n such a disc ri m i nati on ca se i s e nti tl ed to dam age s equal to 25 per cent ofthe pay he w oul d have r ecei ved h ad h e g ot te n th e p ro m ot ion
. Bion do v. City of Chi cago , 38 2 F. 3d 680, 68 8- 89 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ; see a l so Gri f f i n v . M ich iga n D epa rtm ent o f C o rrectio ns, 5 F. 3d 186, 1 89 ( 6th Cir
. 19 93)
. That i s the natur e o fthe re l i ef

— st at ist ica l, p ro b ab ilist ic

— soughtby the pla i nti ff s i n thi s ca se. W e g av e o u r m os t e x ot ic e x a m p le of p ro b ab ilist ic i nj ur y i n M il am v. D om inick’s FinerFoods, Inc. , 58 8 F
. 3d 955, 958 ( 7th Ci r. 2009) : “S up pose you’ re pl ayi ng r oul ett e o n a 37

- numberwhee l ( 18 r ed, 1 8 bl ack, and 1 g r ee n) a t th e Casi no de M onte
- C ar lo, and afteryo u have pla ced y o ur $ 1, 000 be t o n r ed, whi chwi l l pa y y o u $ 2, 00 0 i fthe b all lan d s o n red , th e c as in o c o llap se s t h ro u gh th e n eg lig en ce o f a bui l di ng co nt r ac to r, des tr o y i ng no t o nl y the ro ule tte wh eelbut al so yo ur c h ip s, and yo u cannot get18 N os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068 th e mo n e y y o u p a i d f o r th e m b a c k b e c a u s e a l l t he casi no’ s r eco rds were destr oye d when i t co l l apsed. You’ ve su ff er ed a l o ss equa l t o a 4 8. 6 per ce ntc ha nc e o fwi nni ng $2 ,00 0. So $9 72 .7 3 w ou ld be you r d am ag es .” T h at is the type o fpro babi l i sti c l oss thatthe pla i nti ff s c lai m to have suf f er ed i n thi s ca se. I fa t r i ero ff ac t fi nds c au sa ti on a cc o r di ngt o the sta nd ar d j ust e xplai ned, wh i ch r equi re s m er el y a pro bab i l i t y o fa h a r m a t t r ib ut a b l e t o the de f e nd a nt ’ s wr ongful act, the onl y r em ai ni ng i ssue i s the a m ount o f dam age s t o be a w ar ded to the pla i nti ff. On that phase ofthe case the pla i nti ffhas a m or e re lax ed burden o f p ro of t h an on th e is su e o f ca u sa tio n, esp ec ia l l y if as in th is c as e t h e d efe n d an ts ’ co n d u c t h as m ad e itd ifficu lt f orthe pla i nti ffto pro ve the preci se extent ofhi s dam age s. J. Truitt P a yn e C o . v. Ch rysler M o to rs C o rp . , 4 51 U
. S. 55 7, 56 6 -67 (19 81 ); Bige l ow v. RKO Radi o Pi ct ure s, Inc . , 32 7 U .S. 25 1, 26 4-6 5 (1 94 6); St ory Parc hm e nt Co. v. P a t e rs on Parc hm e ntPape rCo. , 282 U .S. 55 5, 56 2-6 6 (1 93 1); Has l und v. S i mon Pr op e r ty Gr ou p, Inc. , 3 78 F. 3d 653, 65 7- 59 ( 7th C ir. 20 04 ); BE & K Cons t r uc t i on Co. v. Wi l l & Gr undy C ountie s B u il ding Trades Co uncil, 15 6 F
. 3d 756, 76 9- 70 ( 7th C ir. 19 98 ); C o m pu ter Sy stem s E ng ineerin g, Inc . v. Q a ntel C o rp . , 740 F.2d 59, 67 ( 1st C ir. 1984). “O nc e the plaintiff pr oves inj ur y , b r o ad l at i tu de i s al l o wed i n qua nt i fy i ng dam age s, es peci al l y when the defendant’s o w n conduct im pedes quanti fi cati on. But the i nj ury i tse l fm ust be prove d i n the u sualway, witho ut specul ati on o r burden shi fti ng. ” H aslund v. S im on P roper ty Group, Inc. , sup ra , 378 F. 3d at 658. ( The dis ti ncti on be tw ee n p ro ofo fcause and proo fo fdam age s i s al so w el l expl ai ned i n J usti ceN os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068 19 T h om as ’s s ep ar at e o p in ion inAn z a v. Ideal St ee l Supply Co. , 547 U
. S. 45 1, 46 5- 67 ( 2001 )
. ) Even “s pecula ti on has i ts pla ce in est i m atin g dam age s, and doubts s houl d be re sol ved agai nst the wrongdoer

. ” M id- A m erica Ta blew a res, In c . v . M og iTrad i n g Co
. , 100 F.3d 135 3, 1365 ( 7th Cir. 1996 ) , quoti ng O lym pia E q u i p m ent Lea sing C o . v. Western Uni on Te l egrap h Co
. , 797 F. 2d 370, 383 ( 7th C ir . 1986). Otherwise “the m or e g ri evo us the w ro ng done, the l ess l i kel i hood the re w ou ld be o fa re cove ry . ” Bige l ow v. RKO Radi o Pi ct ure s , Inc ., sup ra , 32 7 U.S
. at26 5. In thi s ca se, f orexam ple , the pla i nti ff s do not have goo d rec or ds ofwh i ch ta x l i ens they b i d fo r unsuccessfull y. The onl y re aso n they w oul d hav e need ed su ch re cor ds w as to pr ov e d am age s i n a l aw sui t. S i nce they di dn’ t k now the y wer e vi ct i m s o ffr au d, the y ha d no re aso n to thi nk the y n eeded go od r eco rds o fthei r unsucc e s s fulb i ds

— f oro fw h at use would such r eco rds hav e b ee n h ad th er e b ee n n o fra u d ? T h e jud ge m i s s e d th is poi nt be cause he co nfuse d proo fo fcausa ti on with proof of am o u n t of d am ages an d so den ied th e plaintiff s the b enefi t o fthe eas i erburden o fpro vi ng dam age s than o fc au sa ti o n. The defe n d an ts m ust know they ’ re sk ati ng o n thi n i ce. Fo r (to m ix ou r m et ap h or s) t h e y h av e n ot p u t a ll th eir eg g s i n the b a s k e tl a b e l e d “ pr o xi mat e c a us e ” b uti ns t e ad ha v e a l s o a r g ue d tha t the pl a i nt i ff s c a nn o tpro ve dam age s an d w e can the re f or e a ffi rm o n that al ter nati ve g r o u n d

. G i v e n th e l i g h t e n e d b u r d e n o fp r o o fi n t he damag es pha se o fa to r t ca se , the a r g um en t f ai l s. I t’ s tr ue as w e j ust no ted thatthe pla i nti ff s’ r eco rds o fthei r unsuccess ful bi ds ar e poo r. The defenda n ts a sk us to i nfe r20 N os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068 th atmayb e th e pl ai ntiff s di dn’ t bi d o n anyo fthe t ax l i en s th at the de f en dan ts b i d o n. ( Anothe r po ss ibi l i ty, b utthe d efe n d an ts d on ’t a r g u e it, i s t h at w ith few er arm s in the a i r, m or e buy er s would be at tr act ed to the aucti on be c a u s e th e i r c h a n c e s o f b e i n g a wa r d e d a t a x l i e n b y t he au ct i o ne erwoul d ha ve b een grea te r, a nd pe r ha ps i n the end the t ota l num bero far m s i n the air atea ch aucti on woul d ha ve b ee n the s ame e ve n i fthere ha d b ee n n o vi ol ati on o fthe re l ate d-enti ti es rul e. ) Yet i t’ s undis pu ted that the t w o plai nti ff s subm i tte d m any thousands ofze ro pe r c e ntb i ds

— they prese nted evi dence thatth ey bid o n between 72 and 92 perce nt o fthe tax l ien s that w er e w on by the defendants duri ng the co m pla i nt per i od

— an d en d ed up w ith only 7 p ercen t of th e 96 ,0 0 0 zero-percent aw ar ds du ri ng the si x yea rs in which the al l ege d co ns pi r ac y was i n for ce , whi l e th e defen dan ts , who oft en h ad m or e t h an fou r tim es as m an y a r m s i n t h e a ir as they shoul d h ave had (1 3 ve rs us thr ee) , won a to talo f 41 p er c en t o f t h e z e r o-p er c en t lien s. It se em s h igh ly like ly th at atlea st p ar t o f th is d ra m at ic d iffer en c e in su cc ess w as at tr ibut ab l e si m pl y t o mor e ha nds i n the air. To th e ext en t tha t aw ard s of zero-p ercen t b ids are d istribu ted rand om ly am ong t he bidd ers

— an d m an y un d ou bted ly are

— the three defendant g roups w oul d be e x p e c t e d t o w i n 50 pe r c e n tmo r e a wa r d s th a n th e t wo p lain tiffs if ev er yo n e w as p lay in g b y t h e ru les , an d th is woul d b e 10
. 5 p ercen t o fthe a war ds ( 7 per ce ntpl us 3. 5 per cent)

— not 41 perce nt. T he de fend an ts argu ed and the d istri ct j ud ge ap p e a rs to h ave bee n pers uaded thatunl ess the l i ens had be en aw ar ded o n a s tr i ctl y rota tio nal bas i s when identi cal bi ds w er e s ubm i tte d, ther e c oul d be no confi dence thatN os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068 21

ea cho fthe pl ai nt i ff s woul d ha ve obtained a pr o po r ti o nat el y e qu al sha r e o fthe z er o - per ce ntl i en s ha d the de f en dan ts n o tp a c k e d th e a u c t i o n r o o m. T h i s r e a s o n i ng r efl ec ts a mis unde r st an di ngo fst at i st i ca l the o r y . I n a l ar ge sam ple , r andom se l ecti on p roduces w i th a hi gh degre e of c on fi dence ( cer tai nl y a hi gh eno ugh degr ee f or a damag es a war d i n a fr au d c as e) the s ame pr o po r ti o ns as s t r i c tr o t a t i o n wo ul d. S up po s e a n ur n c o nt a i ns 1 , 000 w hi te bal l s a nd 1, 000 bl ack ones . The u rn’s own er w ants e a c h o f t wo v i s i t o r s t o ha v e 5 0 0 o f e a c h t y pe o f ba l l

. He pa ti en tl y rem oves the b al l s o ne b y o ne , b eing ca r eful t o g i ve e xa ct l y the s ame n um ber o fwhi te a nd bl ack b alls to ea ch vi si tor
. That i s s tr i ct r ota ti on. But by the t i m e he i s hal fw ay thro ugh, a nd ea ch vi si torhas 250 whi te b al l s an d 2 50 b l ac kbal l s, he b ec o m es b o r ed an d i m pati ent. S o he bl i nd f ol ds the vi si tors and tel l s e ach to draw the sam e num bero fb alls f ro m the urn, o fco urse wi th o utb eingabl e to de te r m i ne whi cha r e whi te a nd w hi ch b l ack. H ence the r em ai ni ng 50 0 white and bl ack bal l s a re di str ibuted r an d om l y b etween the tw o vi si tor s, ra therthan i n str i ct ro tat i on as the fi rs t 500 bal l s were. Yet on a ver age each visi torw i l l end u p w i th the sa m e num ber ofwh i te a nd bl ack bal l s, j ust a s when there was str i ct ro tat i on be tw een white and bl ack. T h at ’s j ust o n a v e r a g e ; i n a n y a c t u a l d r a win gth e r e i s l i k e l y t o b e s o me devi ati on fro m equal i ty. S uch a devi ati on would m att er in th is c as e if th e v ict im of a f r a u d h ad to p ro ve h is l oss with m athem ati calexact i tude. H e doe s no t. The s ta ti st i ca l evid en ce i n thi s ca se woul d b e en o ug h, when com bi ne d wi the vi den ce a l so pr es en te d b y the pla i nti ff s o fthe aver age pro fi t they m ade on t h e zer operce nt l i ens that they won, to car rythei r burden of22 N os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068 proving an am ount o fdam ag es w i th suffi ci ent ( w hi ch is not to say w ith great) p recision to j us tify a n a w ard o fth a ta mo u n t
. T h e e v i d e n c e wa s s u mm ar i z e d i nt wo expert
- w i tness r epor ts that th e d efendants ta ke a num bero fpot shot s a t. The cr i ti ci sm s m ay be s ubsta nti al, but they ar e pr em atur e b ec ause the di str i ct j ud ge ne ver ruled o n t h e ad m issibil ity ofthe ex p ert evi dence p re vi ew ed i n the re port s. On the r eco rd as i t s tands the pla i nti ff s m ade a pri m a facie case o f dam age s i n the am ount ( $5 m i l l i on be for e tre bl i ng) that they see k, and so the def endants ca nnot pre vai l o n thei r al ter nati ve, zero - dam age s defense ofthe dist ri ct c ou rt ’s d ec isio n w ith ou t a tria l. So muc h f o r the RI CO c l a i m. Th e pl a i nt i ff s ha v e a supp l em en ta l cl ai m as well, wh i ch the dist ri ct j ud ge al so dism i sse d on sum m ar y j ud gm ent. The cl ai m i s f or in te n tio n al in te rfe re n c e w ith a b u sin es s o p p or tu n ity , i n vio lat ion of Illin o i s c om m on law . Th e jud ge rejec te d it on the gr ound that th e p lainti ff s “ cannot prove thatthey h ad an ac tu al e x p ec ta n c y of w in n i n g a s p ec ific lien .” 2010 W L 35264 69, at* 14. ( I n rej ecti ng “pr oxi m ate causa ti o n” i n r eg ar d t o the RI CO cl ai m , the j udg e, mis ta k i ng the s i gni fi cance ofst ati sti calev i dence, a lso f ast ened on th e inabili ty, as h e thou gh t, of the p lai nt iffs to i d en tify “s p e c i fi c l i e n s ” th a tth e y h a d f a i l e d t o wi n . ) I ti s t r ue that the pl ai nti ffm ust pro ve an i nter f er ence w i th “a busi ness expectancy w i th a speci fi c thi rd party. ” Sc hul e rv. A bbo tt La bo rato ries , 63 9 N
. E.2 d 144, 14 7 ( I l l

. A pp . 19 93) ; se e al so O ’B ri e n v . St at eSt r e e tBank & Trus tCo. , 40 1 N
. E.2 d 13 56 , 13 58 (Ill. A p p . 198 0); Cri nkl ey v . D ow Jone s & Co. , 38 5 N .E .2d 71 4, 72 0-2 2 (Ill. A p p . 197 8); P a r k w a y B a nk& TrustN os. 10

- 3062, 10

- 3068 23 C o . v. City of D a rien , 357 N
. E
. 2d 211, 214-15 ( I ll

. A p p . 1976). B u t t h at req u ire m en t is sa tis fied . Th e p lain tiffs ’ bu s ine ss e xpe ct an cywas the e xpe ct an cyo fr ec ei vi ngl i en s f r o m the i r o wner, the Co unty , a t au ct i o ns unc o ntam i nated by fra ud by co m peti ng bid ders. The County was th e th i r d par ty to th e co m pet i ti o n f o r ta x li ens between the pla i nti ff s ( and t h e o thero ne- ar m ed bi dd er s) and the defendants. The j ud g men ti s r e v e r s e d a nd the c a s e r e man ded f o r fu r th e r p r o ce ed i n g s c o n s i s t e n twi th th i s o p i n i o n . As th i s i s th e se co nd r ev er sa lo fthe d istri ctj udg e i n the sam e ca se, we thi nk i t be st to sp re ad t h e pai n and i nvoke o ur Rul e 36 , so th at th e tr i al wi l l be be f o r e a d if fere nt j ud ge. R EV ER S ED AN D R EMAND ED .

3- 24- 11