Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA

246 Citing briefs

  1. Wikimedia Foundation et al v. National Security Agency/Central Security Service et al

    REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed September 17, 2015

    Accordingly, purported interference with Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights does “not establish [an] injury that is fairly traceable” to Upstream for purposes of standing. Amnesty Int’l, 133 S.Ct. at 1152, n.7 (citing Laird, 408 U.S. at 10-14). CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Government’s opening brief, the Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

  2. Moyer v. Michaels Stores Inc.

    MEMORANDUM

    Filed June 3, 2014

    Such injury does not suffice to confer standing because Plaintiffs "cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending." Clapper, 133 S.Ct. at 1143, 1151 (rejecting respondents' alternative argument that they were suffering 475 {1991). "A cause of action should not be dismissed on the pleadings unless it clearly appears that no set of facts can be proved under the pleadings which will entitle the plaintiff to recover.''

  3. Moyer v. Michaels Stores Inc.

    MOTION

    Filed May 28, 2014

    Such injury does not suffice to confer standing because Plaintiffs "cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending." Clapper, 133 S.Ct. at 1143, 1151 (rejecting respondents' alternative argument that they were suffering 475 {1991). "A cause of action should not be dismissed on the pleadings unless it clearly appears that no set of facts can be proved under the pleadings which will entitle the plaintiff to recover.''

  4. Chevron Corporation v. Donziger et al

    RESPONSE in Support of Motion re: 1860 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12

    Filed February 6, 2014

    5 As Chevron concedes, plaintiffs who can “only ‘speculate’ about whether they would be [harmed] in the future”—as Chevron does here—that speculation “‘substantially undermines their standing theory.’” Opp. 7 (quoting Clapper, 133 S. Ct. at 1148). Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1866 Filed 02/06/14 Page 17 of 20   15   As to the third requirement: Chevron relies on Massachusetts (the case giving a State “special solicitude in [the] standing analysis” because of “its quasi-sovereign interests,” 549 U.S. at 520) and claims that it “has proved redressability” because the “risk” of the defendants prevailing “would be reduced to some extent if Chevron received the relief it seeks.” Opp. 12 (brackets omitted).

  5. Arik Lainer v. Citigroup Inc.

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case

    Filed September 8, 2016

    The Court dismisses this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) because Plaintiff has not alleged a concrete and particularized injury and therefore lacks Article III standing to bring suit. See, e.g., Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1147 (2013); Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016), as revised May 24, 2016. The Court also dismisses this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for two reasons.

  6. Arik Lainer v. Citigroup Inc.

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case [Fed. R. Civ. P. 12

    Filed August 2, 2016

    In any event, even if Plaintiff could allege that he would certainly incur such opportunity or mitigation costs, the Supreme Court has clearly held that a plaintiff “cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.” Clapper, 133 S.Ct. at 1151. The opposite conclusion would allow “an enterprising plaintiff ... to secure a lower standard for Article III standing simply by making an expenditure based on a non-paranoid fear.”

  7. Klayman v. Obama et al

    RESPONSE re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed October 1, 2015

    Id. Therefore, absent some indication that NSA analysts conducting queries of the database have retrieved and Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 150 Filed 10/01/15 Page 25 of 49 23 reviewed records containing metadata associated with Plaintiffs’ calls, they cannot demonstrate that the query process itself constitutes an “invasion of a legally protected interest,” Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560 (emphasis added), even assuming, contra Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), that they have a protected privacy interest in telephony metadata to begin with.11 Plaintiffs have presented no evidence of specific facts demonstrating with the rigor required in this context, Amnesty Int’l, 133 S. Ct. at 1147, 1149, that they have standing to contest the NSA’s collection or querying of bulk telephony metadata under Section 215. Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction must therefore be denied.

  8. Cross et al v. Data Solutions of America Inc et al

    Brief/Memorandum in Support

    Filed April 4, 2014

    And last year the Supreme Court admonished against “improperly water[ing] down the fundamental requirements of Article III” by allowing plaintiffs to manufacture standing based on hypothetical harms. See Clapper, 133 S. Ct. at 1151. Case 3:13-cv-05013-M-BH Document 26 Filed 04/04/14 Page 14 of 30 PageID 418 DEFENDANT COMPACT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS RULE 12(b)(1) AND 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS Page 9 information. And, in any event, Plaintiffs do not own the state DMV’s motor vehicle records.

  9. First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles et al v. National Security Agency et al

    MOTION to Dismiss and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

    Filed December 6, 2013

    Thus Plaintiffs can only speculate as to whether providers from which they receive telephone service have participated in the program—and this is insufficient. See Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. at 1147-48. The Government has acknowledged the authenticity of the now-expired April 25, 2013, FISC Secondary Order directed to Verizon Business Network Services (VBNS), but none of the Plaintiffs allege or provide evidence that they were VBNS customers during the lifespan of that order.

  10. Klayman v. Obama et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed November 12, 2013

    50 U.S.C. § 1881a(h)(4), (6). See also Amnesty Int’l, 133 S. Ct. at 1154. Thus, any claim by Plaintiffs that the NSA exceeded its statutory authority in collecting their communications under PRISM—should it survive the significant standing problems discussed above—would be impliedly precluded as well.