With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that court lacked jurisdiction because no warrant or summons was issued during term of supervision
B: holding that an order or judgment issued by a disqualified judge is void but not because the court lacked jurisdiction
C: holding that defendants lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in common area of residential building
D: 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
D.