Sixth Circuit held that an owner-lessor of retail commercial space did not have standing to maintain an antitrust action against a grocery store retailer whg, would not release its. rental space to allow the plaintiff to lease the space to a different grocery store. The plaintiff claimed "that the defendants intended to monopolize the retail grocery market by destroying the site as a location for the operation of a retail grocery outlet. The Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiff’s injury (rental devaluation) as a supplier of retail space to direct participants in the retail grocery market was not “sufficiently linked to the pro-competitive policy of the antitrust laws.” Southaven, 715 F.2d at 1087; see also Rosenberg v. Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, 598 F.Supp. 642 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (<HOLDING>). Here, the plaintiffs’ injury is not the
holding that defendants lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in common area of residential building holding that an order or judgment issued by a disqualified judge is void but not because the court lacked jurisdiction holding that owner and developer of shopping mall alleging defendants conspired to keep it from opening a grocery store by filing state court lawsuits and preventing building permits from being issued lacked standing because developer was not a direct participant in the retail grocery market holding that court lacked jurisdiction because no warrant or summons was issued during term of supervision holding that builder who was in the business of building and selling homes and who had a contract for the building of a home in which employee of subcontractor was injured was to be considered a principal contractor for purposes of workers compensation even though at the time of injury he was the owner of the house being built