Opinion ID: 820495
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: There are other potential plaintiffs

Text: As a consequence of their direct injury, the State agencies are potential plaintiffs. They constitute “an identifiable class . . . whose self-interest would normally motivate them to vindicate the public interest in antitrust enforcement.” Associated General Contractors, 459 U.S. at 542. We see no reason to expect the State agencies to lack the incentive or the ability to seek relief, for example, through the courts, or through administrative proceedings. That no agency has brought suit to date “does not support recognizing [Gatt’s] standing.” Daniel, 428 F.3d at 444. Instead, it suggests that either the agencies have been unaware of the collusive bidding or, perhaps, that the facts were other than as alleged by plaintiff. See Associated General Contractors, 459 U.S. at 18 542 n.47 (“[I]f there is substance to [the plaintiff’s] claim, it is difficult to understand why the[ ] direct victims of the conspiracy have not asserted any claim in their own right.”); cf. Phillip Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Fundamentals of Antitrust Law, § 3.01c, at 3-9 to 3-10 (4th ed. 2011) (“If the ‘superior’ plaintiff has not sued, one may doubt the existence of any antitrust violation at all.”).