injury. Further, NAMI contends that Insignia failed to establish claims for unlawful monopoly or attempted monopoly and for unlawful exclusive dealing or unlawful boycott. The Court begins by addressing the merits of Insignia’s anti-trust claims, and then turns to Insignia’s disparagement claims. B. Injury to Insignia A plaintiff seeking damages under antitrust laws must show that the alleged anticompetitive practices in fact caused it injury. See 15 U.S.C. § 15(a). That is, “[i]n order to prevail plaintiffs must prove for each claim ... a causal relationship between the violation and the injury.” Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 207 F.3d 1039, 1054 (8th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Read v. Med. X-Ray Ctr., P.C., 110 F.3d 543, 545 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). 1. Evidence of Loss of Business NAMI contends
holding that on a motion for summary judgment the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position will be insufficient and there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff holding that the district court was permitted to find conduct that had been acquitted by the jury when determining the defendants sentence holding at summary judgment that the plaintiff had to show a reasonable jury could find the defendants allegedly anticompetitive conduct was a material cause of plaintiffs injury holding where reasonable difference of opinion as to whether the defendants act was the or a proximate cause of the injury the matter is for the jury to decide holding that at the summary judgment stage there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could find for the plaintiff