In Boccardo v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 1037, the federal antitrust lawsuit was dismissed because the plaintiffs did not have direct dealings with the members of the price-fixing conspiracy. (Id. at p. 1042.) The plaintiffs argued this dismissal was based upon the procedural bar of standing and thus not a final judgment on the merits. (Ibid.) In rejecting this claim, the Boccardo court pointed out, "'the question of which persons have been injured by an illegal overcharge for purposes of 4 of the Clayton Act is analytically distinct from the question of which persons have sustained injuries too remote to give them standing to sue for damages under 4.'" (Id. at pp. 1042-1043.) Because the district court dismissed the case on the former ground, "the federal court based its dismissal not on lack of standing but on a substantive determination that appellants had no cause of action under section 4 of the Clayton Act. Thus the dismissal of Boccardo I was a judgment on the merits." (Id. at p. 1043.)