Opinion ID: 6983274
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Existence of More Direct Victims of Alleged Wrongful Conduct

Text: Plaintiffs argue that their “standing is confirmed” because only they, and not smokers, “can allege injury to business or property for the RICO and antitrust claims at issue here.” Plaintiffs are correct that individuals that suffer personal injury cannot claim medical expenses as “injury to business or property,” and that the smokers are therefore barred from asserting RICO or antitrust claims. See Berg v. First State Ins. Co., 915 F.2d 460, 464 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that personal injury is not “injury to business or property” and is therefore not compensable under RICO). This inability does not, however, necessarily lead to the conclusion that plaintiffs must therefore have standing. First, “Congress did not intend the antitrust laws to provide a remedy in damages for all injuries that might conceivably be traced to an antitrust violation.” AGC, 459 U.S. at 534, 103 S.Ct. 897. Some injuries caused by an antitrust violation may thus be left unremedied for lack of a proper plaintiff. As we recognized in Exhibitors’ Serv., Inc. v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 788 F.2d 574, 580 n. 7 (9th Cir.1986): “The fact that injury has occurred and that other claims have failed does not permit this court to expand the coverage of [antitrust law].” Second, there is an identifiable group of persons-smokers-whose self-interest will motivate them to seek recovery of the damages caused by defendants’ alleged wrongful conduct. Although the smokers cannot “vindicate the public interest in antitrust [or RICO] enforcement,” see AGC, 459 U.S. at 542, 103 S.Ct. 897, they can “remedy the harm done by defendants’ alleged misconduct. Moreover, these actions [by the smokers] will promote ‘the general interest in deterring injurious conduct,’ which Holmes noted as the objective of this policy factor.” Laborers Local 17, 172 F.3d at 235 (quoting Holmes, 503 U.S. at 269, 112 S.Ct. 1311). The existence of the smokers, who are more direct victims of the alleged wrongful conduct and who can be counted on to vindicate the injury caused by defendants’ alleged wrongful conduct, weighs heavily in favor of barring plaintiffs’ actions.