With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". not show that Tyson’s conduct was the sole cause of their injury in order to establish proximate cause; they need show only that the conduct was a substantial cause. See Schwartz v. Sun Co., 276 F.3d 900, 904 (6th Cir.2002) (“Where there is evidence, as in this case, which tends to show that [plaintiffs] losses were a result of [defendant’s] conduct, as well as evidence which tends to show that his losses were attributable to other factors, it is normally up to the trier of fact to decide which is the case.”); Cox v. Admin. United States Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1399 (11th Cir.1994) (“A proximate cause is not [] the same thing as a sole cause. Instead, a factor is a proximate cause if it is a substantial factor in the sequence of responsible causation.”) (quotation omitted); id. (<HOLDING>). That determination will require some evidence

A: holding that plaintiff had standing to bring a rico conspiracy claim despite his inability to bring a substantive rico claim
B: holding that union members suit based on contract that was independent of a collective bargaining agreement was not preempted and not removable
C: holding that union members had standing to bring rico claims for reduced compensation under collective bargaining agreement
D: holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted
C.