California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)
If you decide that [name of plaintiff] has proved [his/her/its] claim against [name of defendant], you also must decide how much money will reasonably compensate [name of plaintiff] for the harm. This compensation is called "damages."
The amount of damages must include an award for all harm that was caused by [name of defendant], even if the particular harm could not have been anticipated.
[Name of plaintiff] must prove the amount of [his/her/its] damages. However, [name of plaintiff] does not have to prove the exact amount of damages that will provide reasonable compensation for the harm. You must not speculate or guess in awarding damages.
The following are the specific items of damages claimed by [name of plaintiff]:
1. [Loss of reasonably anticipated sales and profits];
2. [An increase in [name of plaintiff]'s expenses];
3. [Insert other applicable item of damage].
Sources and Authority
Business and Professions Code section 16750(a) confers a private right of action for treble damages and attorneys fees on "[a]ny person who is injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden or declared unlawful by this chapter."
"The plaintiff in a Cartwright Act proceeding must show that an antitrust violation was the proximate cause of his injuries. The frequently stated 'standing to sue' requirement is merely a rule that an action for violation of the antitrust laws may be maintained only by a party within the 'target area' of the antitrust violation, and not by one incidentally injured thereby. An 'antitrust injury' must be proved; that is, the type of injury the antitrust laws were intended to prevent, and which flows from the invidious conduct which renders defendants' acts unlawful. Finally, a plaintiff must show an injury within the area of the economy that is endangered by a breakdown of competitive onditions." (Kolling v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 709, 723-724 [187 Cal.Rptr. 797], internal citations and footnote omitted.)
" '[D]amage issues in these cases are rarely susceptible of the kind of concrete, detailed proof of injury which is available in other contexts. . . . [I]n the absence of more precise proof, the factfinder may "conclude as a matter of just and reasonable inference from the proof of defendants' wrongful acts and their tendency to injure plaintiffs' business, and from the evidence of the decline in prices, profits and values, not shown to be attributable to other causes, that defendants' wrongful acts had caused damage to the plaintiffs." ' " (Diesel Electric Sales and Service, Inc. v. Marco Marine San Diego, Inc. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 202, 219-220 [20 Cal.Rptr.2d 62], internal citations omitted.)
1 Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th ed. 1987) Contracts, § 585
2 Antitrust and Trade Regulation Law Section, State Bar of California, California Antitrust Law (2d ed. 2001), §§ 10.06E, 12.05, 12.07
6 Antitrust Laws & Trade Regulation, Ch. 105, California, § 105.09 (Matthew Bender)
3 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 40, Fraud and Deceit and Other Business Torts, § 40.172 (Matthew Bender)
49 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 565, Unfair Competition (Matthew Bender)
(New September 2003)