343, 358 n.6 (1996), a plaintiff who raises multiple causes of action "must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press." DaimlerChrysler Corp. Since "standing is not dispensed in gross," Lewis v. The injury must also be "an invasion of a legally protected interest." Id. It requires that the party seeking review be himself among the injured." Id. "he 'injury in fact' test requires more than an injury to a cognizable interest.
To satisfy this requirement, the alleged injury must be "particularized," in that it "must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way." Lujan, 504 U.S. We have recognized that of the three required elements of constitutional standing, "the injury-in-fact element is often determinative." Toll Bros., Inc. 555, 560-61 (1992) (internal quotations, alterations, and citations omitted). Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of- the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court. The plaintiff bears the burden of meeting the "irreducible constitutional minimum" of Article III standing by establishing three elements:įirst, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact - an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. "he standing question is whether the plaintiff has 'alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy' as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf." Warth, 422 U.S. The courts have developed several justicability doctrines to enforce the case-or-controversy requirement, and "perhaps the most important of these doctrines" is the requirement that "a litigant have 'standing' to invoke the power of a federal court." Allen v. Indeed, "'o principle is more fundamental to the judiciary's proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.'" Raines v. 464, 471 (1982), protects the system of separated powers and respect for the coequal branches by restricting the province of the judiciary to "decid on the rights of individuals." Marbury v. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S.
This "bedrock requirement," Valley Forge Christian Coll. ***Īrticle III of the Constitution limits the scope of the Federal judicial power to the adjudication of "cases" or "controversies." U.S. 2011) ( "A dismissal for lack of statutory standing is effectively the same as a dismissal for failure to state a claim."). In evaluating whether a complaint adequately pleads the elements of standing, courts apply the standard of reviewing a complaint pursuant to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: "Court must accept as true all material allegations set forth in the complaint, and must construe those facts in favor of the nonmoving party." Ballentine, 486 F.3d at 810 (citing Warth v. In reviewing a facial challenge, which contests the sufficiency of the pleadings, "the court must only consider the allegations of the complaint and documents referenced therein and attached thereto, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Gould Elec. In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, a court must first determine whether the movant presents a facial or factual attack. properly brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), because standing is a jurisdictional matter." Ballentine v. "A motion to dismiss for want of standing is. 12(b)(1), a court must grant a motion to dismiss if it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a claim. Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action, 2012 U.S.