Opinion ID: 433843
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The background and experience of plaintiff in his prospective business ...

Text: 13 2. Affirmative action on the part of plaintiff to engage in the proposed business ... 14 3. The ability of plaintiff to finance the business and the purchase of equipment and facilities necessary to engage in the business ... 15 4. The consummation of contracts by plaintiff ... 16 Id. at 1309-10, quoting Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., Ltd., 231 F.Supp. 72, 81-82 (S.D.N.Y.1964); see also Parks v. Watson, 716 F.2d 646, 660 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (setting out the same factors). Regardless of the distinction between an existing and a prospective enterprise we find the four factor analysis useful in considering the issue of Fine's standing. 17 Fine has made six attempts to compete in four years and has been successful on three occasions. In the context of game show participation this constitutes significant background and experience and also demonstrates affirmative action on his part to make a business out of contest appearances. Ability to finance is not a relevant factor, as contest participation is labor intensive. Fine's actual participation on three occasions is equivalent to consumation of contracts. 18 We do not, as did the district court, believe Fine's status as a law student, engagement in part-time employment and failure to make special efforts to improve contest skills mandate the conclusion that he was not engaged in or attempting to engage in business for purposes of section 4. A business can be conducted on a part-time basis. In the absence of the challenged restrictions, Fine might well have spent more time as a contestant and less time in other, less remunerative part-time employment. His earnings from contests constituted more than half his taxable income over a four year period. Fine's partial success demonstrates that he already possessed the skills necessary to make a business of contest participation. 19 In short, there was evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude that Fine did everything reasonably possible to make a business out of contest participation. We conclude that he has established a triable issue of fact whether he was injured in his business and consequently has standing. We therefore turn to the issue of whether the restrictions violate section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1.