Opinion ID: 6983274
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Potential for Duplicative Recovery or Complex Apportionment of Damages

Text: This third and final factor also weighs in favor of barring plaintiffs’ actions. It is quite likely that if there are not cases by smokers already pending in Oregon, there will likely be many filed as has been seen in other states. Although the smokers cannot recover under either RICO or the antitrust laws, they can seek recovery under other state law theories for personal injury and the associated medical costs-the same damages that plaintiffs seek to recover. Moreover, although there may be some protection from multiple recovery in state law, this safeguard would not cure the ultimate problem-that the courts would be forced “to adopt complicated rules apportioning damages among plaintiffs at different levels of injury from the violative acts, to obviate the risk of multiple recoveries.” See Holmes, 503 U.S. at 269, 112 S.Ct. 1311 (citing AGC, 459 U.S. at 543-44, 103 S.Ct. 897); Laborers Local 17, 172 F.3d at 230. All three factors of the “remoteness” test weigh in favor of barring plaintiffs’ claims. We therefore hold that plaintiffs lack standing to bring either a RICO or an antitrust claim for damages. 5