alleged contracts numbered 9853, 9139, 8182, and 8972 because it has failed to either produce executed copies, or establish certain terms of those alleged contracts; 4 (7th Cir. 1985) (noting that only a reasonable basis of computation is required for the submission of the question of damages to the jury). Defendants seem to be confusing the fact that the plaintiff must establish evidence of the existence of an injury, as opposed to proving the actual amount of damages. Ironically, the cases defendants cite say as much. West v. The Western Casualty & Surety Co., 846 F.2d 387, 393 (7th Cir.1988) (stating that with regard to fraud, plaintiff must prove that it was damaged because of reliance on false statements); Robinson v. City Colleges of Chicago, 656 F.Supp. 555, 561 (N.D.Ill.1987) (<HOLDING>); Mannion v. Stallings & Company, Inc., 204
holding that a rico plaintiff alleging destruction of the value of his stock lacks standing because his injury is derivative of the corporations injury holding that beneficiaries of an estate lacked standing under rico to sue for an injury derivative of the estates injury holding that plaintiffs cannot claim that a conspiracy to violate rico existed if they do not adequately plead a substantive violation of rico holding that under rico plaintiff must prove an injury because of violation of statute holding that to prevail under civil rico plaintiff must prove that defendants participated in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity