Opinion ID: 483628
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Complexity in Apportioning Damages

Text: 37 The concern here is whether, if the plaintiff is allowed standing, any attempt to ascertain damages would lead to long and complicated proceedings involving massive evidence and complicated theories. Id. at 544, 103 S.Ct. at 911 (quoting Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 U.S. 481, 493, 88 S.Ct. 2224, 2231, 20 L.Ed.2d 1231 (1968)). 38 The canneries argue apportioning damages will be excessively complicated because it will require an analysis of how much tuna and from whom the canneries would have bought if prices had been different; what expenses a vessel owner would have deducted; or what wages would have been paid if prices had been different. The class members counter that this would not be difficult to determine because detailed records of each voyage were kept and are available and the wages are determined by formulas clearly set out in readily available contracts. 39 The district court, taking both sides into consideration, held: 40 And then also there clearly is a likelihood of the complex apportionment of damages. The fishermen's award of damages really would have to be apportioned according to the vessel owners and the records of each fishing voyage during the time period addressed in the complaint because the share of the catch of the fisherman is dependent on the contract between the vessel owners and the defendants herein and the fisherman is entitled to a percentage of the catch based upon that contract.... Although plaintiffs allege that accurate records of these voyages exist, the fact remains that the damages are traced through the vessel owners. 41 We agree with the canneries and the district court. The determination and proof of damages in this case would be very complex. 42 Although most cases will find some factors tending in favor of standing (to a greater or lesser degree), and some against (also in varying degrees), and a court may find standing if the balance of factors so instructs, Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, 791 F.2d at 1363, in this case all of the factors tend against finding standing for the crewmembers and even more so against finding standing for the union. The district court's finding that the class members were not proper parties to bring this antitrust action is therefore 43 AFFIRMED.