” Oki Semiconductor, 298 F.3d at 773 (quoting Cox v. Admin. United States Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1399 (11th Cir.1994)). To prove that an injury is proximately caused by a RICO violation, a plaintiff must demonstrate that there is “a direct relationship between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged.” Imagineering, 976 F.2d at 1311 (citing Holmes, 503 U.S. at 268, 112 S.Ct. 1311); see id. (“One principle underlying this requirement is that the less direct an injury is, the more difficult it becomes to ascertain the amount of a plaintif holding that a sublessee was not directly injured when RICO violations caused an increase in the rent charged to the primary tenant, although the tenant passed the increases on to the sublessee); Imagineering, 976 F.2d at 1311 (<HOLDING>). Consequently, to state a RICO claim,
holding that where contract between contractor and subcontractor allowed subcontractor to recover if contractor recovered contractor was not barred from bringing suit on behalf of subcontractor holding that subcontractor could recover damages from general contractor for delay in performance under state law holding that a subcontractor was not directly injured when a rico violation prevented a general contractor that would have retained it from obtaining a construction contract holding that subcontractor was not obligated to indemnify general contractor for general contractors own negligence where indemnification clause did not expressly state that subcontractor would indemnify general contractor for such negligence holding that application of licensing statute effective after unlicensed subcontractor entered construction agreement with contractor would impair obligations under the contract because contractor would be relieved of its obligation to pay for subcontractors services