direct target of the defendants’ scheme to obtain an unfair competitive advantage by fraudulently soliciting these referrals. Here, however, the tobacco companies would not stand to benefit competitively by harming plaintiffs, and plaintiffs were not the direct target of the defendant’s activities. Therefore, plaintiffs lack standing for their RICO claims. (2) RICO Injury The RICO statute also requires that the alleged violation of the law be a “proximate cause” of the injury suffered. See Holmes, 503 U.S. at 268, 112 S.Ct. 1311. Plaintiffs claims in this action are too remote to allow recovery under RICO. Oregon Laborers, 185 F.3d at 963; see also Imagineering, Inc. v. Kiewit Pacific Co., 976 F.2d 1303 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1004, 113 S.Ct. 1644, 123 L.Ed.2d 266 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro v. Lerner, 31 F.3d
holding that subcontractors lacked standing to bring rico claim against defendant whose fraud allegedly caused their prime contractor to lose bid holding that plaintiff had standing to bring a rico conspiracy claim despite his inability to bring a substantive rico claim holding that a judgment creditor lacked standing under rico to bring a personal claim for bankruptcy fraud committed against the corporation itself in an attempt to hinder creditors generally holding that the rico bar applies even where the plaintiff does not have standing to bring a securities fraud action holding that plaintiff lacked standing to assert rico claim for mail fraud based on misrepresentations made to third parties