and not for psychologists and could maintain an antitrust action. Id. at 480-81, 102 S.Ct. 2540. Here, the Funds are not consumers in the market for tobacco products any more than they are defendants’ competitors in that market. Finally, while the Funds are fond of selectively pointing to tobacco cases across the country which support their arguments, they have not pointed to one ease involving union health and welfare funds in which their arguments have been accepted. Indeed, courts have consistently found — and in the context of the recent barrage of tobacco suits filed across the country consistencies are few and far between — that union health and welfare funds do not have standing to.bring federal or state antitrust claims. See, e.g., Oregon. Laborers-Employers, slip op. at 14 (<HOLDING>); Seafarers, slip op. at 26-28 (dismissing
recognizing that while in a diversity case a federal court may not address the plaintiffs claim unless the plaintiff has standing to sue under state law the plaintiff must also meet article iii standing requirements holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim holding that plaintiffs cannot meet the standing or proximate causation requirements necessary to maintain an antitrust claim holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation