In Associated General Contractors v. California State Counsel of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court began by observing that standing in an antitrust case is not limited to the requirement of injury in fact but requires a further inquiry to determine whether the plaintiff is a proper party to bring a private antitrust action. 459 U.S. at 535 n. 31. The Court then set forth the following specific factors that must be considered as part of that inquiry: (1) the causal connection between the plaintiffs' alleged injury and defendants' claimed violation of the antitrust laws. 459 U.S. at 537. (2) the alleged improper motive of the defendant. 459 U.S. at 537 and n. 35. (3) the nature of plaintiffs' alleged injury, including whether it is the type Congress sought to redress in the antitrust laws and whether the plaintiff was a consumer or competitor in the market in which trade was restrained. 459 U.S. at 538-39. (4) the directness or indirectness of the alleged injury. 459 U.S. at 540. (5) whether there exists a more immediate class of potential plaintiffs whose self-interest could be expected to motivate them to enforce the antitrust laws. 459 U.S. at 541-42. (6) whether the damages or injuries claimed are speculative. 459 U.S. at 542-43. (7) whether the complexity of the case can be kept "within judicially manageable limits", avoiding the risk of duplicative recoveries and the danger of complex apportionment of damages. 459 U.S. at 543-44.